format of journal article review

PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
EDIT Edit this Article
EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
Browse Articles
Learn Something New
Quizzes Hot
This Or That Game
Train Your Brain
Explore More
Support wikiHow
About wikiHow
Log in / Sign up
Education and Communications
Critical Reviews

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Last Updated: April 24, 2024 Fact Checked

Preparing to Write Your Review

Writing the article review, sample article reviews, expert q&a.

This article was co-authored by Jake Adams . Jake Adams is an academic tutor and the owner of Simplifi EDU, a Santa Monica, California based online tutoring business offering learning resources and online tutors for academic subjects K-College, SAT & ACT prep, and college admissions applications. With over 14 years of professional tutoring experience, Jake is dedicated to providing his clients the very best online tutoring experience and access to a network of excellent undergraduate and graduate-level tutors from top colleges all over the nation. Jake holds a BS in International Business and Marketing from Pepperdine University. There are 12 references cited in this article, which can be found at the bottom of the page. This article has been fact-checked, ensuring the accuracy of any cited facts and confirming the authority of its sources. This article has been viewed 3,106,756 times.

An article review is both a summary and an evaluation of another writer's article. Teachers often assign article reviews to introduce students to the work of experts in the field. Experts also are often asked to review the work of other professionals. Understanding the main points and arguments of the article is essential for an accurate summation. Logical evaluation of the article's main theme, supporting arguments, and implications for further research is an important element of a review . Here are a few guidelines for writing an article review.

Education specialist Alexander Peterman recommends: "In the case of a review, your objective should be to reflect on the effectiveness of what has already been written, rather than writing to inform your audience about a subject."

Article Review 101

Read the article very closely, and then take time to reflect on your evaluation. Consider whether the article effectively achieves what it set out to.
Write out a full article review by completing your intro, summary, evaluation, and conclusion. Don't forget to add a title, too!
Proofread your review for mistakes (like grammar and usage), while also cutting down on needless information.

Step 1 Understand what an article review is.

Article reviews present more than just an opinion. You will engage with the text to create a response to the scholarly writer's ideas. You will respond to and use ideas, theories, and research from your studies. Your critique of the article will be based on proof and your own thoughtful reasoning.
An article review only responds to the author's research. It typically does not provide any new research. However, if you are correcting misleading or otherwise incorrect points, some new data may be presented.
An article review both summarizes and evaluates the article.

Step 2 Think about the organization of the review article.

Summarize the article. Focus on the important points, claims, and information.
Discuss the positive aspects of the article. Think about what the author does well, good points she makes, and insightful observations.
Identify contradictions, gaps, and inconsistencies in the text. Determine if there is enough data or research included to support the author's claims. Find any unanswered questions left in the article.

Make note of words or issues you don't understand and questions you have.
Look up terms or concepts you are unfamiliar with, so you can fully understand the article. Read about concepts in-depth to make sure you understand their full context.

Pay careful attention to the meaning of the article. Make sure you fully understand the article. The only way to write a good article review is to understand the article.

With either method, make an outline of the main points made in the article and the supporting research or arguments. It is strictly a restatement of the main points of the article and does not include your opinions.
After putting the article in your own words, decide which parts of the article you want to discuss in your review. You can focus on the theoretical approach, the content, the presentation or interpretation of evidence, or the style. You will always discuss the main issues of the article, but you can sometimes also focus on certain aspects. This comes in handy if you want to focus the review towards the content of a course.
Review the summary outline to eliminate unnecessary items. Erase or cross out the less important arguments or supplemental information. Your revised summary can serve as the basis for the summary you provide at the beginning of your review.

Step 6 Write an outline of your evaluation.

What does the article set out to do?
What is the theoretical framework or assumptions?
Are the central concepts clearly defined?
How adequate is the evidence?
How does the article fit into the literature and field?
Does it advance the knowledge of the subject?
How clear is the author's writing? Don't: include superficial opinions or your personal reaction. Do: pay attention to your biases, so you can overcome them.

For example, in MLA , a citation may look like: Duvall, John N. "The (Super)Marketplace of Images: Television as Unmediated Mediation in DeLillo's White Noise ." Arizona Quarterly 50.3 (1994): 127-53. Print. [9] X Trustworthy Source Purdue Online Writing Lab Trusted resource for writing and citation guidelines Go to source

For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.

Your introduction should only be 10-25% of your review.
End the introduction with your thesis. Your thesis should address the above issues. For example: Although the author has some good points, his article is biased and contains some misinterpretation of data from others’ analysis of the effectiveness of the condom.

Use direct quotes from the author sparingly.
Review the summary you have written. Read over your summary many times to ensure that your words are an accurate description of the author's article.

Support your critique with evidence from the article or other texts.
The summary portion is very important for your critique. You must make the author's argument clear in the summary section for your evaluation to make sense.
Remember, this is not where you say if you liked the article or not. You are assessing the significance and relevance of the article.
Use a topic sentence and supportive arguments for each opinion. For example, you might address a particular strength in the first sentence of the opinion section, followed by several sentences elaborating on the significance of the point.

This should only be about 10% of your overall essay.
For example: This critical review has evaluated the article "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS" by Anthony Zimmerman. The arguments in the article show the presence of bias, prejudice, argumentative writing without supporting details, and misinformation. These points weaken the author’s arguments and reduce his credibility.

Make sure you have identified and discussed the 3-4 key issues in the article.

↑ https://libguides.cmich.edu/writinghelp/articlereview
↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548566/
↑ Jake Adams. Academic Tutor & Test Prep Specialist. Expert Interview. 24 July 2020.
↑ https://guides.library.queensu.ca/introduction-research/writing/critical
↑ https://www.iup.edu/writingcenter/writing-resources/organization-and-structure/creating-an-outline.html
↑ https://writing.umn.edu/sws/assets/pdf/quicktips/titles.pdf
↑ https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_guide/mla_works_cited_periodicals.html
↑ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4548565/
↑ https://writingcenter.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/593/2014/06/How_to_Summarize_a_Research_Article1.pdf
↑ https://www.uis.edu/learning-hub/writing-resources/handouts/learning-hub/how-to-review-a-journal-article
↑ https://writingcenter.unc.edu/tips-and-tools/editing-and-proofreading/

About This Article

If you have to write an article review, read through the original article closely, taking notes and highlighting important sections as you read. Next, rewrite the article in your own words, either in a long paragraph or as an outline. Open your article review by citing the article, then write an introduction which states the article’s thesis. Next, summarize the article, followed by your opinion about whether the article was clear, thorough, and useful. Finish with a paragraph that summarizes the main points of the article and your opinions. To learn more about what to include in your personal critique of the article, keep reading the article! Did this summary help you? Yes No

Send fan mail to authors

Reader Success Stories

Prince Asiedu-Gyan

Apr 22, 2022

Did this article help you?

Sammy James

Sep 12, 2017

Juabin Matey

Aug 30, 2017

Vanita Meghrajani

Jul 21, 2016

Nov 27, 2018

Featured Articles

The Top 12 Traits That Make a Person Unlikeable

Watch Articles

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Do Not Sell or Share My Info
Not Selling Info

Get all the best how-tos!

Get Started

Take the first step and invest in your future.

Online Programs

Offering flexibility & convenience in 51 online degrees & programs.

Prairie Stars

Featuring 15 intercollegiate NCAA Div II athletic teams.

Find your Fit

UIS has over 85 student and 10 greek life organizations, and many volunteer opportunities.

Arts & Culture

Celebrating the arts to create rich cultural experiences on campus.

Give Like a Star

Your generosity helps fuel fundraising for scholarships, programs and new initiatives.

Bragging Rights

UIS was listed No. 1 in Illinois and No. 3 in the Midwest in 2023 rankings.

Quick links Applicants & Students Important Apps & Links Alumni Faculty and Staff Community Admissions How to Apply Cost & Aid Tuition Calculator Registrar Orientation Visit Campus Academics Register for Class Programs of Study Online Degrees & Programs Graduate Education International Student Services Study Away Student Support Bookstore UIS Life Dining Diversity & Inclusion Get Involved Health & Wellness COVID-19 United in Safety Residence Life Student Life Programs UIS Connection Important Apps UIS Mobile App Advise U Canvas myUIS i-card Balance Pay My Bill - UIS Bursar Self-Service Email Resources Bookstore Box Information Technology Services Library Orbit Policies Webtools Get Connected Area Information Calendar Campus Recreation Departments & Programs (A-Z) Parking UIS Newsroom The Observer Connect & Get Involved Update your Info Alumni Events Alumni Networks & Groups Volunteer Opportunities Alumni Board News & Publications Featured Alumni Alumni News UIS Alumni Magazine Resources Order your Transcripts Give Back Alumni Programs Career Development Services & Support Accessibility Services Campus Services Campus Police Facilities & Services Registrar Faculty & Staff Resources Website Project Request Web Services Training & Tools Academic Impressions Career Connect CSA Reporting Cybersecurity Training Faculty Research FERPA Training Website Login Campus Resources Newsroom Campus Calendar Campus Maps i-Card Human Resources Public Relations Webtools Arts & Events UIS Performing Arts Center Visual Arts Gallery Event Calendar Sangamon Experience Center for Lincoln Studies ECCE Speaker Series Community Engagement Center for State Policy and Leadership Illinois Innocence Project Innovate Springfield Central IL Nonprofit Resource Center NPR Illinois Community Resources Child Protection Training Academy Office of Electronic Media University Archives/IRAD Institute for Illinois Public Finance

Request Info

How to Review a Journal Article

Request Info Request info for.... Undergraduate/Graduate Online Study Away Continuing & Professional Education International Student Services General Inquiries

For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review , you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article. This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research. That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple summary of the article and evaluate it on a deeper level. As a college student, this might sound intimidating. However, as you engage with the research process, you are becoming immersed in a particular topic, and your insights about the way that topic is presented are valuable and can contribute to the overall conversation surrounding your topic.

IMPORTANT NOTE!!

Some disciplines, like Criminal Justice, may only want you to summarize the article without including your opinion or evaluation. If your assignment is to summarize the article only, please see our literature review handout.

Before getting started on the critique, it is important to review the article thoroughly and critically. To do this, we recommend take notes, annotating , and reading the article several times before critiquing. As you read, be sure to note important items like the thesis, purpose, research questions, hypotheses, methods, evidence, key findings, major conclusions, tone, and publication information. Depending on your writing context, some of these items may not be applicable.

Questions to Consider

To evaluate a source, consider some of the following questions. They are broken down into different categories, but answering these questions will help you consider what areas to examine. With each category, we recommend identifying the strengths and weaknesses in each since that is a critical part of evaluation.

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

How well is the purpose made clear in the introduction through background/context and thesis?
How well does the abstract represent and summarize the article’s major points and argument?
How well does the objective of the experiment or of the observation fill a need for the field?
How well is the argument/purpose articulated and discussed throughout the body of the text?
How well does the discussion maintain cohesion?

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

How appropriate and clear is the title of the article?
Where could the author have benefited from expanding, condensing, or omitting ideas?
How clear are the author’s statements? Challenge ambiguous statements.
What underlying assumptions does the author have, and how does this affect the credibility or clarity of their article?
How objective is the author in his or her discussion of the topic?
How well does the organization fit the article’s purpose and articulate key goals?

Evaluating Methods

How appropriate are the study design and methods for the purposes of the study?
How detailed are the methods being described? Is the author leaving out important steps or considerations?
Have the procedures been presented in enough detail to enable the reader to duplicate them?

Evaluating Data

Scan and spot-check calculations. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
Do you find any content repeated or duplicated?
How many errors of fact and interpretation does the author include? (You can check on this by looking up the references the author cites).
What pertinent literature has the author cited, and have they used this literature appropriately?

Following, we have an example of a summary and an evaluation of a research article. Note that in most literature review contexts, the summary and evaluation would be much shorter. This extended example shows the different ways a student can critique and write about an article.

Chik, A. (2012). Digital gameplay for autonomous foreign language learning: Gamers’ and language teachers’ perspectives. In H. Reinders (ed.), Digital games in language learning and teaching (pp. 95-114). Eastbourne, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

Be sure to include the full citation either in a reference page or near your evaluation if writing an annotated bibliography .

In Chik’s article “Digital Gameplay for Autonomous Foreign Language Learning: Gamers’ and Teachers’ Perspectives”, she explores the ways in which “digital gamers manage gaming and gaming-related activities to assume autonomy in their foreign language learning,” (96) which is presented in contrast to how teachers view the “pedagogical potential” of gaming. The research was described as an “umbrella project” consisting of two parts. The first part examined 34 language teachers’ perspectives who had limited experience with gaming (only five stated they played games regularly) (99). Their data was recorded through a survey, class discussion, and a seven-day gaming trial done by six teachers who recorded their reflections through personal blog posts. The second part explored undergraduate gaming habits of ten Hong Kong students who were regular gamers. Their habits were recorded through language learning histories, videotaped gaming sessions, blog entries of gaming practices, group discussion sessions, stimulated recall sessions on gaming videos, interviews with other gamers, and posts from online discussion forums. The research shows that while students recognize the educational potential of games and have seen benefits of it in their lives, the instructors overall do not see the positive impacts of gaming on foreign language learning.

The summary includes the article’s purpose, methods, results, discussion, and citations when necessary.

This article did a good job representing the undergraduate gamers’ voices through extended quotes and stories. Particularly for the data collection of the undergraduate gamers, there were many opportunities for an in-depth examination of their gaming practices and histories. However, the representation of the teachers in this study was very uneven when compared to the students. Not only were teachers labeled as numbers while the students picked out their own pseudonyms, but also when viewing the data collection, the undergraduate students were more closely examined in comparison to the teachers in the study. While the students have fifteen extended quotes describing their experiences in their research section, the teachers only have two of these instances in their section, which shows just how imbalanced the study is when presenting instructor voices.

Some research methods, like the recorded gaming sessions, were only used with students whereas teachers were only asked to blog about their gaming experiences. This creates a richer narrative for the students while also failing to give instructors the chance to have more nuanced perspectives. This lack of nuance also stems from the emphasis of the non-gamer teachers over the gamer teachers. The non-gamer teachers’ perspectives provide a stark contrast to the undergraduate gamer experiences and fits neatly with the narrative of teachers not valuing gaming as an educational tool. However, the study mentioned five teachers that were regular gamers whose perspectives are left to a short section at the end of the presentation of the teachers’ results. This was an opportunity to give the teacher group a more complex story, and the opportunity was entirely missed.

Additionally, the context of this study was not entirely clear. The instructors were recruited through a master’s level course, but the content of the course and the institution’s background is not discussed. Understanding this context helps us understand the course’s purpose(s) and how those purposes may have influenced the ways in which these teachers interpreted and saw games. It was also unclear how Chik was connected to this masters’ class and to the students. Why these particular teachers and students were recruited was not explicitly defined and also has the potential to skew results in a particular direction.

Overall, I was inclined to agree with the idea that students can benefit from language acquisition through gaming while instructors may not see the instructional value, but I believe the way the research was conducted and portrayed in this article made it very difficult to support Chik’s specific findings.

Some professors like you to begin an evaluation with something positive but isn’t always necessary.

The evaluation is clearly organized and uses transitional phrases when moving to a new topic.

This evaluation includes a summative statement that gives the overall impression of the article at the end, but this can also be placed at the beginning of the evaluation.

This evaluation mainly discusses the representation of data and methods. However, other areas, like organization, are open to critique.

Article Review

Article Review Writing: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

What is an Article Review?

An article review is a critical evaluation and analysis of a piece of writing, typically an academic or journalistic article.

It goes beyond summarizing the content; it involves an in-depth examination of the author's ideas, arguments, and methodologies.

The goal is to provide a well-rounded understanding of the article's strengths, weaknesses, and overall contribution to the field.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Types of Article Reviews

Article reviews come in various forms, each serving a distinct purpose in the realm of academic or professional discourse. Understanding these types is crucial for tailoring your approach.

Here are some common types of article reviews:

Journal Article Review

A journal article review involves a thorough evaluation of scholarly articles published in academic journals.

It requires summarizing the article's key points, methodology, and findings, emphasizing its contributions to the academic field.

Take a look at the following example to help you understand better.

Example of Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

A research article review focuses on scrutinizing articles with a primary emphasis on research.

This type of review involves evaluating the research design, methodology, results, and their broader implications.

Discussions on the interpretation of results, limitations, and the article's overall contributions are key.

Here is a sample for you to get an idea.

Example of Research Article Review

Science Article Review

A science article review specifically addresses articles within scientific disciplines. It includes summarizing scientific concepts, hypotheses, and experimental methods.

The type of review assesses the reliability of the experimental design, and evaluates the author's interpretation of findings.

Take a look at the following example.

Example of Science Article Review

Critical Review

A critical review involves a balanced critique of a given article. It encompasses providing a comprehensive summary, highlighting key points, and engaging in a critical analysis of strengths and weaknesses.

To get a clearer idea of a critical review, take a look at this example.

Critical Review Example

Article Review Format

When crafting an article review in either APA or MLA format, it's crucial to adhere to the specific guidelines for citing sources.

Below are the bibliographical entries for different types of sources in both APA and MLA styles:

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

Writing an effective article review involves a systematic approach. Follow this step-by-step process to ensure a comprehensive and well-structured analysis.

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

Before diving into the review, carefully read and understand the assignment guidelines.

Pay attention to specific requirements, such as word count, formatting style (APA, MLA), and the aspects your instructor wants you to focus on.

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

Begin by thoroughly reading the article. Take notes on key points, arguments, and evidence presented by the author.

Understand the author's main thesis and the context in which the article was written.

Step 3: Create a Summary

Summarize the main points of the article. Highlight the author's key arguments and findings.

While writing the summary ensure that you capture the essential elements of the article to provide context for your analysis.

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

In this step, pinpoint the author's main thesis or central argument. Understand the purpose of the article and how the author supports their position.

This will serve as a foundation for your critique.

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

Examine the evidence provided by the author to support their thesis. Assess the reliability and validity of the methodology used.

Consider the sources, data collection methods, and any potential biases.

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

Evaluate the author's writing style and how effectively they communicate their ideas.

Consider the clarity of the language, the organization of the content, and the overall persuasiveness of the article.

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

Reflect on the article's contribution to its field of study. Analyze how it fits into the existing literature, its significance, and any potential implications for future research or applications.

Step 8: Write the Introduction

Craft an introduction that includes the article's title, author, publication date, and a brief overview.

State the purpose of your review and your thesis—the main point you'll be analyzing in your review.

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

Organize your review by addressing specific aspects such as the author's thesis, methodology, writing style, and the article's contribution.

Use clear paragraphs to structure your analysis logically.

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

Summarize your main points and restate your overall assessment of the article.

Offer insights into its strengths and weaknesses, and conclude with any recommendations for improvement or suggestions for further research.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Article Review Outline

Creating a well-organized outline is an essential part of writing a coherent and insightful article review.

This outline given below will guide you through the key sections of your review, ensuring that your analysis is comprehensive and logically structured.

Refer to the following template to understand outlining the article review in detail.

Article Review Format Template

Article Review Examples

Examining article review examples can provide valuable insights into the structure, tone, and depth of analysis expected.

Below are sample article reviews, each illustrating a different approach and focus.

Example of Article Review

Sample of article review assignment pdf

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

Crafting an effective article review involves a combination of critical analysis, clarity, and structure.

Here are some valuable tips to guide you through the process:

Start with a Clear Introduction

Kick off your article review by introducing the article's main points and mentioning the publication date, which you can find on the re-title page. Outline the topics you'll cover in your review.

Concise Summary with Unanswered Questions

Provide a short summary of the article, emphasizing its main ideas. Highlight any lingering questions, known as "unanswered questions," that the article may have triggered. Use a basic article review template to help structure your thoughts.

Illustrate with Examples

Use examples from the article to illustrate your points. If there are tables or figures in the article, discuss them to make your review more concrete and easily understandable.

Organize Clearly with a Summary Section

Keep your review straightforward and well-organized. Begin with the start of the article, express your thoughts on what you liked or didn't like, and conclude with a summary section. This follows a basic plan for clarity.

Constructive Criticism

When providing criticism, be constructive. If there are elements you don't understand, frame them as "unanswered questions." This approach shows engagement and curiosity.

Smoothly Connect Your Ideas

Ensure your thoughts flow naturally throughout your review. Use simple words and sentences. If you have questions about the article, let them guide your review organically.

Revise and Check for Clarity

Before finishing, go through your review. Correct any mistakes and ensure it sounds clear. Check if you followed your plan, used simple words, and incorporated the keywords effectively. This makes your review better and more accessible for others.

In conclusion , writing an effective article review involves a thoughtful balance of summarizing key points, and addressing unanswered questions.

By following a simple and structured approach, you can create a review that not only analyzes the content but also adds value to the reader's understanding.

Remember to organize your thoughts logically, use clear language, and provide examples from the article to support your points.

Ready to elevate your article reviewing skills? Explore the valuable resources and expert assistance at MyPerfectWords.com.

Our team of experienced writers is here to help you with article reviews and other school tasks.

So why wait? Place your " write my essays online " request today!

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Dr. Barbara is a highly experienced writer and author who holds a Ph.D. degree in public health from an Ivy League school. She has worked in the medical field for many years, conducting extensive research on various health topics. Her writing has been featured in several top-tier publications.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

How to write a journal article review: What's in this Guide

What's in this Guide
What is a journal article?
Create a template
Choose your article to review
Read your article carefully
Do the writing
Remember to edit
Additional resources

What's in this guide?

This guide contains key resources for writing a journal article review.

Click the links below or the guide tabs above to find the following information

find out what a journal article is
learn how to use a template t o get you started
explore strategies on how to choose the article for review
learn how to read a journal article effectively and make notes
understand the structure of a journal article review
find tips on how to edit effectively
access additional information

Click below to view our related resources

Effective reading skills.

Find ways to make notes for researching

Note taking in lectures and tutorials

Get some great strategies and tips for taking notes in lectures and tutorials

Tips and strategies for preparing for, and sitting, an exam

Pathways and Academic Learning Support

Next: What is a journal article? >>
Last Updated: Apr 27, 2023 4:28 PM
URL: https://libguides.newcastle.edu.au/how-to-write-a-journal-article-review

Journal Article Review in APA Style

Journal article reviews refer to the appraisal of potencies and limitations of an article’s opinion and subject matter. The article reviews offer the readers with an explanation, investigation and clarification to evaluate the importance of the article. A journal article review usually follows the APA style, which is in itself an exceptional mode of writing. Writing a journal article review in APA style requires a thorough reading of an article and then present our personal opinions on its subject matter.

In order to write a journal article review in APA style, one must necessarily conform to the detailed guidelines of APA style of writing. As such, a few tips for writing a journal article review in APA style have been provided in details below.

Tips for Writing Journal Article Review in APA Style

Getting started.

Read the complete article. Most journal articles use highly complicated and difficult language and wording. Thus, it is suggested to read the article thoroughly several times to understand it perfectly. Select a statement that effectively conveys the main idea of your review. Present the ideas in a rational order, keeping in mind that all opinions must sustain the main idea.

Start with a header with citation

Journal article reviews start with a header, including citation of the sources being reviewed. This citation is mentioned at the top of the review, following the APA style (refer to the APA style manual for more information). We will need the author’s name for the article, title of the article, journal of the published article, volume and issue number, publication date, and page numbers for the article.

Write a summary

The introductory paragraph of the review should provide a brief summary of the article, strictly limiting it to one to three paragraphs depending on the article length. The summary should discuss only the most imperative details about the article, like the author’s intention in writing the article, how the study was conducted, how the article relates to other work on the same subject, the results and other relevant information from the article.

Body of the review

The succeeding paragraphs of the review should present your ideas and opinions on the article. Discuss the significance and suggestion of the results of the study. The body of the article review should be limited to one to two paragraphs, including your understanding of the article, quotations from the article demonstrating your main ideas, discussing the article’s limitations and how to overcome them.

Concluding the review

The concluding paragraphs of the review should provide your personal appraisal of the journal article. Discuss whether the article is well-written or not, whether any information is missing, or if further research is necessary on the subject. Also, write a paragraph on how the author could develop the study results, what the information means on a large scale, how further investigation can develop the subject matter, and how the knowledge of this field can be extended further.

Citation and Revision

In-text citation of direct quotes or paraphrases from the article can be done using the author’s name, year of publication and page numbers (refer to the APA-style manual for citation guidelines). After finishing the writing of journal article review in APA style, it would be advised to re-visit the review after a few days and then re-read it altogether. By doing this, you will be able to view the review with a new perspective and may detect mistakes that were previously left undetected.

The above mentioned tips will help and guide you for writing a journal article review in APA style. However, while writing a journal article review, remember that you are undertaking more than just a narrative review. Thus, the article review should not merely focus on discussing what the article is about, but should reveal your personal ideas and opinions on the article.

Formatting in mla style.

Formatting in MLA style is the most widely used style of formatting for writing papers and citing sources in the liberal arts and humanities. This all-inclusive guideline will make you familiar with the composition of an MLA paper and its general formatting style. Formatting in MLA style can be very useful when most of the […]

The importance of editing dissertations

Writing a dissertation is the start of the final phase of graduation. For a student, it marks the transition from being a graduate to a research scholar. Writing a dissertation is a self-directed process, making it an interesting yet challenging task. It is the culmination of years of hard work and study. However, writing a […]

APA Style of Formatting

Get more familiar with the APA style of formatting with the help of these basic APA formatting guidelines.

How to write a superb literature review

Andy Tay is a freelance writer based in Singapore.

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Literature reviews are important resources for scientists. They provide historical context for a field while offering opinions on its future trajectory. Creating them can provide inspiration for one’s own research, as well as some practice in writing. But few scientists are trained in how to write a review — or in what constitutes an excellent one. Even picking the appropriate software to use can be an involved decision (see ‘Tools and techniques’). So Nature asked editors and working scientists with well-cited reviews for their tips.

Access options

Access Nature and 54 other Nature Portfolio journals

Get Nature+, our best-value online-access subscription

24,99 € / 30 days

cancel any time

Subscribe to this journal

Receive 51 print issues and online access

185,98 € per year

only 3,65 € per issue

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-03422-x

Interviews have been edited for length and clarity.

Updates & Corrections

Correction 09 December 2020 : An earlier version of the tables in this article included some incorrect details about the programs Zotero, Endnote and Manubot. These have now been corrected.

Hsing, I.-M., Xu, Y. & Zhao, W. Electroanalysis 19 , 755–768 (2007).

Article Google Scholar

Ledesma, H. A. et al. Nature Nanotechnol. 14 , 645–657 (2019).

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Brahlek, M., Koirala, N., Bansal, N. & Oh, S. Solid State Commun. 215–216 , 54–62 (2015).

Choi, Y. & Lee, S. Y. Nature Rev. Chem . https://doi.org/10.1038/s41570-020-00221-w (2020).

Download references

Research management

How researchers in remote regions handle the isolation

Career Feature 24 MAY 24

What steps to take when funding starts to run out

Brazil’s plummeting graduate enrolments hint at declining interest in academic science careers

Career News 21 MAY 24

Guidelines for academics aim to lessen ethical pitfalls in generative-AI use

Nature Index 22 MAY 24

Pay researchers to spot errors in published papers

World View 21 MAY 24

Who will make AlphaFold3 open source? Scientists race to crack AI model

News 23 MAY 24

Egypt is building a $1-billion mega-museum. Will it bring Egyptology home?

News Feature 22 MAY 24

Associate Editor, Nature Briefing

Associate Editor, Nature Briefing Permanent, full time Location: London, UK Closing date: 10th June 2024 Nature, the world’s most authoritative s...

London (Central), London (Greater) (GB)

Springer Nature Ltd

Professor, Division Director, Translational and Clinical Pharmacology

Cincinnati Children’s seeks a director of the Division of Translational and Clinical Pharmacology.

Cincinnati, Ohio

Cincinnati Children's Hospital & Medical Center

Data Analyst for Gene Regulation as an Academic Functional Specialist

The Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn is an international research university with a broad spectrum of subjects. With 200 years of his...

53113, Bonn (DE)

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

The Institute of Zoology (IOZ), Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), is seeking global talents around the world.

Beijing, China

Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

Full Professorship (W3) in “Organic Environmental Geochemistry (f/m/d)

The Institute of Earth Sciences within the Faculty of Chemistry and Earth Sciences at Heidelberg University invites applications for a FULL PROFE...

Heidelberg, Brandenburg (DE)

Universität Heidelberg

Quick links

Explore articles by subject
Guide to authors
Editorial policies

The Tech Edvocate

Advertisement
Home Page Five (No Sidebar)
Home Page Four
Home Page Three
Home Page Two
Icons [No Sidebar]
Left Sidbear Page
Lynch Educational Consulting
My Speaking Page
Newsletter Sign Up Confirmation
Newsletter Unsubscription
Page Example
Privacy Policy
Protected Content
Request a Product Review
Shortcodes Examples
Terms and Conditions
The Edvocate
The Tech Edvocate Product Guide
Write For Us
Dr. Lynch’s Personal Website
The Edvocate Podcast
Assistive Technology
Child Development Tech
Early Childhood & K-12 EdTech
EdTech Futures
EdTech News
EdTech Policy & Reform
EdTech Startups & Businesses
Higher Education EdTech
Online Learning & eLearning
Parent & Family Tech
Personalized Learning
Product Reviews
Tech Edvocate Awards
School Ratings

Spain, Ireland and Norway Say They Will Recognize a Palestinian State. Why Does That Matter?

World reacts to the death of iran’s president ebrahimraisi, best cities to live in the u.s., according to u.s. news & world report, netanyahu denounces bid to arrest him over gaza war, how does this end with hamas holding firm and fighting back in gaza, israel faces only bad options, trump hush money trial to shape prosecutor alvin bragg’s legacy, judge dismisses felony convictions of 5 retired military officers in u.s. navy bribery case, trump falsely claims us justice department was ready to kill him, majority of americans wrongly believe us is in recession – and most blame biden, best and worst travel times for memorial day weekend, how to write an article review (with sample reviews) .

An article review is a critical evaluation of a scholarly or scientific piece, which aims to summarize its main ideas, assess its contributions, and provide constructive feedback. A well-written review not only benefits the author of the article under scrutiny but also serves as a valuable resource for fellow researchers and scholars. Follow these steps to create an effective and informative article review:

1. Understand the purpose: Before diving into the article, it is important to understand the intent of writing a review. This helps in focusing your thoughts, directing your analysis, and ensuring your review adds value to the academic community.

2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification.

3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review’s introduction, briefly outline the primary themes and arguments presented by the author(s). Keep it concise but sufficiently informative so that readers can quickly grasp the essence of the article.

4. Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses: In subsequent paragraphs, assess the strengths and limitations of the article based on factors such as methodology, quality of evidence presented, coherence of arguments, and alignment with existing literature in the field. Be fair and objective while providing your critique.

5. Discuss any implications: Deliberate on how this particular piece contributes to or challenges existing knowledge in its discipline. You may also discuss potential improvements for future research or explore real-world applications stemming from this study.

6. Provide recommendations: Finally, offer suggestions for both the author(s) and readers regarding how they can further build on this work or apply its findings in practice.

7. Proofread and revise: Once your initial draft is complete, go through it carefully for clarity, accuracy, and coherence. Revise as necessary, ensuring your review is both informative and engaging for readers.

Sample Review:

A Critical Review of “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health”

Introduction:

“The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is a timely article which investigates the relationship between social media usage and psychological well-being. The authors present compelling evidence to support their argument that excessive use of social media can result in decreased self-esteem, increased anxiety, and a negative impact on interpersonal relationships.

Strengths and weaknesses:

One of the strengths of this article lies in its well-structured methodology utilizing a variety of sources, including quantitative surveys and qualitative interviews. This approach provides a comprehensive view of the topic, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of the effects of social media on mental health. However, it would have been beneficial if the authors included a larger sample size to increase the reliability of their conclusions. Additionally, exploring how different platforms may influence mental health differently could have added depth to the analysis.

Implications:

The findings in this article contribute significantly to ongoing debates surrounding the psychological implications of social media use. It highlights the potential dangers that excessive engagement with online platforms may pose to one’s mental well-being and encourages further research into interventions that could mitigate these risks. The study also offers an opportunity for educators and policy-makers to take note and develop strategies to foster healthier online behavior.

Recommendations:

Future researchers should consider investigating how specific social media platforms impact mental health outcomes, as this could lead to more targeted interventions. For practitioners, implementing educational programs aimed at promoting healthy online habits may be beneficial in mitigating the potential negative consequences associated with excessive social media use.

Conclusion:

Overall, “The Effects of Social Media on Mental Health” is an important and informative piece that raises awareness about a pressing issue in today’s digital age. Given its minor limitations, it provides valuable

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

3 ways to teach yourself to play ....

Matthew Lynch

3 Ways to Paint a Stone Basement

How to Play Kick the Can: 14 Steps

4 Ways to Trim Your Own Split Ends

3 Ways to Clean Brushed Aluminum

How to clean soapstone: 12 steps.

How to Source an Image

How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples

Did you know that article reviews are not just academic exercises but also a valuable skill in today's information age? In a world inundated with content, being able to dissect and evaluate articles critically can help you separate the wheat from the chaff. Whether you're a student aiming to excel in your coursework or a professional looking to stay well-informed, mastering the art of writing article reviews is an invaluable skill.

Short Description

In this article, our research paper writing service experts will start by unraveling the concept of article reviews and discussing the various types. You'll also gain insights into the art of formatting your review effectively. To ensure you're well-prepared, we'll take you through the pre-writing process, offering tips on setting the stage for your review. But it doesn't stop there. You'll find a practical example of an article review to help you grasp the concepts in action. To complete your journey, we'll guide you through the post-writing process, equipping you with essential proofreading techniques to ensure your work shines with clarity and precision!

What Is an Article Review: Grasping the Concept

A review article is a type of professional paper writing that demands a high level of in-depth analysis and a well-structured presentation of arguments. It is a critical, constructive evaluation of literature in a particular field through summary, classification, analysis, and comparison.

If you write a scientific review, you have to use database searches to portray the research. Your primary goal is to summarize everything and present a clear understanding of the topic you've been working on.

Writing Involves:

Summarization, classification, analysis, critiques, and comparison.
The analysis, evaluation, and comparison require the use of theories, ideas, and research relevant to the subject area of the article.
It is also worth nothing if a review does not introduce new information, but instead presents a response to another writer's work.
Check out other samples to gain a better understanding of how to review the article.

Types of Review

When it comes to article reviews, there's more than one way to approach the task. Understanding the various types of reviews is like having a versatile toolkit at your disposal. In this section, we'll walk you through the different dimensions of review types, each offering a unique perspective and purpose. Whether you're dissecting a scholarly article, critiquing a piece of literature, or evaluating a product, you'll discover the diverse landscape of article reviews and how to navigate it effectively.

Journal Article Review

Just like other types of reviews, a journal article review assesses the merits and shortcomings of a published work. To illustrate, consider a review of an academic paper on climate change, where the writer meticulously analyzes and interprets the article's significance within the context of environmental science.

Research Article Review

Distinguished by its focus on research methodologies, a research article review scrutinizes the techniques used in a study and evaluates them in light of the subsequent analysis and critique. For instance, when reviewing a research article on the effects of a new drug, the reviewer would delve into the methods employed to gather data and assess their reliability.

Science Article Review

In the realm of scientific literature, a science article review encompasses a wide array of subjects. Scientific publications often provide extensive background information, which can be instrumental in conducting a comprehensive analysis. For example, when reviewing an article about the latest breakthroughs in genetics, the reviewer may draw upon the background knowledge provided to facilitate a more in-depth evaluation of the publication.

Need a Hand From Professionals?

Address to Our Writers and Get Assistance in Any Questions!

Formatting an Article Review

The format of the article should always adhere to the citation style required by your professor. If you're not sure, seek clarification on the preferred format and ask him to clarify several other pointers to complete the formatting of an article review adequately.

How Many Publications Should You Review?

In what format should you cite your articles (MLA, APA, ASA, Chicago, etc.)?
What length should your review be?
Should you include a summary, critique, or personal opinion in your assignment?
Do you need to call attention to a theme or central idea within the articles?
Does your instructor require background information?

When you know the answers to these questions, you may start writing your assignment. Below are examples of MLA and APA formats, as those are the two most common citation styles.

Using the APA Format

Articles appear most commonly in academic journals, newspapers, and websites. If you write an article review in the APA format, you will need to write bibliographical entries for the sources you use:

Web : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
Journal : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Publication Year). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
Newspaper : Author [last name], A.A [first and middle initial]. (Year, Month, Date of Publication). Publication Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

Using MLA Format

Web : Last, First Middle Initial. “Publication Title.” Website Title. Website Publisher, Date Month Year Published. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.
Newspaper : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date, Month, Year Published: Page(s). Print.
Journal : Last, First M. “Publication Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year Published): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Month Year Accessed.

Enhance your writing effortlessly with EssayPro.com , where you can order an article review or any other writing task. Our team of expert writers specializes in various fields, ensuring your work is not just summarized, but deeply analyzed and professionally presented. Ideal for students and professionals alike, EssayPro offers top-notch writing assistance tailored to your needs. Elevate your writing today with our skilled team at your article review writing service !

The Pre-Writing Process

Facing this task for the first time can really get confusing and can leave you unsure of where to begin. To create a top-notch article review, start with a few preparatory steps. Here are the two main stages from our dissertation services to get you started:

Step 1: Define the right organization for your review. Knowing the future setup of your paper will help you define how you should read the article. Here are the steps to follow:

Summarize the article — seek out the main points, ideas, claims, and general information presented in the article.
Define the positive points — identify the strong aspects, ideas, and insightful observations the author has made.
Find the gaps —- determine whether or not the author has any contradictions, gaps, or inconsistencies in the article and evaluate whether or not he or she used a sufficient amount of arguments and information to support his or her ideas.
Identify unanswered questions — finally, identify if there are any questions left unanswered after reading the piece.

Step 2: Move on and review the article. Here is a small and simple guide to help you do it right:

Start off by looking at and assessing the title of the piece, its abstract, introductory part, headings and subheadings, opening sentences in its paragraphs, and its conclusion.
First, read only the beginning and the ending of the piece (introduction and conclusion). These are the parts where authors include all of their key arguments and points. Therefore, if you start with reading these parts, it will give you a good sense of the author's main points.
Finally, read the article fully.

These three steps make up most of the prewriting process. After you are done with them, you can move on to writing your own review—and we are going to guide you through the writing process as well.

Outline and Template

As you progress with reading your article, organize your thoughts into coherent sections in an outline. As you read, jot down important facts, contributions, or contradictions. Identify the shortcomings and strengths of your publication. Begin to map your outline accordingly.

If your professor does not want a summary section or a personal critique section, then you must alleviate those parts from your writing. Much like other assignments, an article review must contain an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Thus, you might consider dividing your outline according to these sections as well as subheadings within the body. If you find yourself troubled with the pre-writing and the brainstorming process for this assignment, seek out a sample outline.

Your custom essay must contain these constituent parts:

Pre-Title Page - Before diving into your review, start with essential details: article type, publication title, and author names with affiliations (position, department, institution, location, and email). Include corresponding author info if needed.
Running Head - In APA format, use a concise title (under 40 characters) to ensure consistent formatting.
Summary Page - Optional but useful. Summarize the article in 800 words, covering background, purpose, results, and methodology, avoiding verbatim text or references.
Title Page - Include the full title, a 250-word abstract, and 4-6 keywords for discoverability.
Introduction - Set the stage with an engaging overview of the article.
Body - Organize your analysis with headings and subheadings.
Works Cited/References - Properly cite all sources used in your review.
Optional Suggested Reading Page - If permitted, suggest further readings for in-depth exploration.
Tables and Figure Legends (if instructed by the professor) - Include visuals when requested by your professor for clarity.

Example of an Article Review

You might wonder why we've dedicated a section of this article to discuss an article review sample. Not everyone may realize it, but examining multiple well-constructed examples of review articles is a crucial step in the writing process. In the following section, our essay writing service experts will explain why.

Looking through relevant article review examples can be beneficial for you in the following ways:

To get you introduced to the key works of experts in your field.
To help you identify the key people engaged in a particular field of science.
To help you define what significant discoveries and advances were made in your field.
To help you unveil the major gaps within the existing knowledge of your field—which contributes to finding fresh solutions.
To help you find solid references and arguments for your own review.
To help you generate some ideas about any further field of research.
To help you gain a better understanding of the area and become an expert in this specific field.
To get a clear idea of how to write a good review.

View Our Writer’s Sample Before Crafting Your Own!

Why Have There Been No Great Female Artists?

Steps for Writing an Article Review

Here is a guide with critique paper format on how to write a review paper:

Step 1: Write the Title

First of all, you need to write a title that reflects the main focus of your work. Respectively, the title can be either interrogative, descriptive, or declarative.

Step 2: Cite the Article

Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper. For example, an article citation in the MLA style should look as follows:

Author's last and first name. "The title of the article." Journal's title and issue(publication date): page(s). Print

Abraham John. "The World of Dreams." Virginia Quarterly 60.2(1991): 125-67. Print.

Step 3: Article Identification

After your citation, you need to include the identification of your reviewed article:

Title of the article
Title of the journal
Year of publication

All of this information should be included in the first paragraph of your paper.

The report "Poverty increases school drop-outs" was written by Brian Faith – a Health officer – in 2000.

Step 4: Introduction

Your organization in an assignment like this is of the utmost importance. Before embarking on your writing process, you should outline your assignment or use an article review template to organize your thoughts coherently.

If you are wondering how to start an article review, begin with an introduction that mentions the article and your thesis for the review.
Follow up with a summary of the main points of the article.
Highlight the positive aspects and facts presented in the publication.
Critique the publication by identifying gaps, contradictions, disparities in the text, and unanswered questions.

Step 5: Summarize the Article

Make a summary of the article by revisiting what the author has written about. Note any relevant facts and findings from the article. Include the author's conclusions in this section.

Step 6: Critique It

Present the strengths and weaknesses you have found in the publication. Highlight the knowledge that the author has contributed to the field. Also, write about any gaps and/or contradictions you have found in the article. Take a standpoint of either supporting or not supporting the author's assertions, but back up your arguments with facts and relevant theories that are pertinent to that area of knowledge. Rubrics and templates can also be used to evaluate and grade the person who wrote the article.

Step 7: Craft a Conclusion

In this section, revisit the critical points of your piece, your findings in the article, and your critique. Also, write about the accuracy, validity, and relevance of the results of the article review. Present a way forward for future research in the field of study. Before submitting your article, keep these pointers in mind:

As you read the article, highlight the key points. This will help you pinpoint the article's main argument and the evidence that they used to support that argument.
While you write your review, use evidence from your sources to make a point. This is best done using direct quotations.
Select quotes and supporting evidence adequately and use direct quotations sparingly. Take time to analyze the article adequately.
Every time you reference a publication or use a direct quotation, use a parenthetical citation to avoid accidentally plagiarizing your article.
Re-read your piece a day after you finish writing it. This will help you to spot grammar mistakes and to notice any flaws in your organization.
Use a spell-checker and get a second opinion on your paper.

The Post-Writing Process: Proofread Your Work

Finally, when all of the parts of your article review are set and ready, you have one last thing to take care of — proofreading. Although students often neglect this step, proofreading is a vital part of the writing process and will help you polish your paper to ensure that there are no mistakes or inconsistencies.

To proofread your paper properly, start by reading it fully and checking the following points:

Punctuation
Other mistakes

Afterward, take a moment to check for any unnecessary information in your paper and, if found, consider removing it to streamline your content. Finally, double-check that you've covered at least 3-4 key points in your discussion.

And remember, if you ever need help with proofreading, rewriting your essay, or even want to buy essay , our friendly team is always here to assist you.

Need an Article REVIEW WRITTEN?

Just send us the requirements to your paper and watch one of our writers crafting an original paper for you.

What Is A Review Article?

How to write an article review, how to write an article review in apa format.

Daniel Parker

is a seasoned educational writer focusing on scholarship guidance, research papers, and various forms of academic essays including reflective and narrative essays. His expertise also extends to detailed case studies. A scholar with a background in English Literature and Education, Daniel’s work on EssayPro blog aims to support students in achieving academic excellence and securing scholarships. His hobbies include reading classic literature and participating in academic forums.

is an expert in nursing and healthcare, with a strong background in history, law, and literature. Holding advanced degrees in nursing and public health, his analytical approach and comprehensive knowledge help students navigate complex topics. On EssayPro blog, Adam provides insightful articles on everything from historical analysis to the intricacies of healthcare policies. In his downtime, he enjoys historical documentaries and volunteering at local clinics.

How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples

An article review is an academic assignment that invites you to study a piece of academic research closely. Then, you should present its summary and critically evaluate it using the knowledge you’ve gained in class and during your independent study. If you get such a task at college or university, you shouldn’t confuse it with a response paper, which is a distinct assignment with other purposes (we’ll talk about it in detail below).

In this article, prepared by Custom-Writing experts, you’ll find:

the intricacies of article review writing;
the difference between an article review and similar assignments;
a step-by-step algorithm for review composition;
a couple of samples to guide you throughout the writing process.

So, if you wish to study our article review example and discover helpful writing tips, keep reading.

❓ What Is an Article Review?

✍️ Writing Steps

📑 Article Review Format

🔗 references.

An article review is an academic paper that summarizes and critically evaluates the information presented in your selected article.

This image shows what an article review is.

The first thing you should note when approaching the task of an article review is that not every article is suitable for this assignment. Let’s have a look at the variety of articles to understand what you can choose from.

Popular Vs. Scholarly Articles

In most cases, you’ll be required to review a scholarly, peer-reviewed article – one composed in compliance with rigorous academic standards. Yet, the Web is also full of popular articles that don’t present original scientific value and shouldn’t be selected for a review.

Not sure how to distinguish these two types? Here is a comparative table to help you out.

Article Review vs. Response Paper

Now, let’s consider the difference between an article review and a response paper:

If you’re assigned to critique a scholarly article , you will need to compose an article review .
If your subject of analysis is a popular article , you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper .

The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of these two article types. Peer-reviewed, scholarly articles have clear-cut quality criteria, allowing you to conduct and present a structured assessment of the assigned material. Popular magazines have loose or non-existent quality criteria and don’t offer an opportunity for structured evaluation. So, they are only fit for a subjective response, in which you can summarize your reactions and emotions related to the reading material.

All in all, you can structure your response assignments as outlined in the tips below.

✍️ How to Write an Article Review: Step by Step

Here is a tried and tested algorithm for article review writing from our experts. We’ll consider only the critical review variety of this academic assignment. So, let’s get down to the stages you need to cover to get a stellar review.

Read the Article

As with any reviews, reports, and critiques, you must first familiarize yourself with the assigned material. It’s impossible to review something you haven’t read, so set some time for close, careful reading of the article to identify:

The author’s main points and message.
The arguments they use to prove their points.
The methodology they use to approach the subject.

In terms of research type , your article will usually belong to one of three types explained below.

Summarize the Article

Now that you’ve read the text and have a general impression of the content, it’s time to summarize it for your readers. Look into the article’s text closely to determine:

The thesis statement , or general message of the author.
Research question, purpose, and context of research.
Supporting points for the author’s assumptions and claims.
Major findings and supporting evidence.

As you study the article thoroughly, make notes on the margins or write these elements out on a sheet of paper. You can also apply a different technique: read the text section by section and formulate its gist in one phrase or sentence. Once you’re done, you’ll have a summary skeleton in front of you.

Evaluate the Article

The next step of review is content evaluation. Keep in mind that various research types will require a different set of review questions. Here is a complete list of evaluation points you can include.

Write the Text

After completing the critical review stage, it’s time to compose your article review.

The format of this assignment is standard – you will have an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. The introduction should present your article and summarize its content. The body will contain a structured review according to all four dimensions covered in the previous section. The concluding part will typically recap all the main points you’ve identified during your assessment.

It is essential to note that an article review is, first of all, an academic assignment. Therefore, it should follow all rules and conventions of academic composition, such as:

No contractions . Don’t use short forms, such as “don’t,” “can’t,” “I’ll,” etc. in academic writing. You need to spell out all those words.
Formal language and style . Avoid conversational phrasing and words that you would naturally use in blog posts or informal communication. For example, don’t use words like “pretty,” “kind of,” and “like.”
Third-person narrative . Academic reviews should be written from the third-person point of view, avoiding statements like “I think,” “in my opinion,” and so on.
No conversational forms . You shouldn’t turn to your readers directly in the text by addressing them with the pronoun “you.” It’s vital to keep the narrative neutral and impersonal.
Proper abbreviation use . Consult the list of correct abbreviations , like “e.g.” or “i.e.,” for use in your academic writing. If you use informal abbreviations like “FYA” or “f.i.,” your professor will reduce the grade.
Complete sentences . Make sure your sentences contain the subject and the predicate; avoid shortened or sketch-form phrases suitable for a draft only.
No conjunctions at the beginning of a sentence . Remember the FANBOYS rule – don’t start a sentence with words like “and” or “but.” They often seem the right way to build a coherent narrative, but academic writing rules disfavor such usage.
No abbreviations or figures at the beginning of a sentence . Never start a sentence with a number — spell it out if you need to use it anyway. Besides, sentences should never begin with abbreviations like “e.g.”

Finally, a vital rule for an article review is properly formatting the citations. We’ll discuss the correct use of citation styles in the following section.

When composing an article review, keep these points in mind:

Start with a full reference to the reviewed article so the reader can locate it quickly.
Ensure correct formatting of in-text references.
Provide a complete list of used external sources on the last page of the review – your bibliographical entries .

You’ll need to understand the rules of your chosen citation style to meet all these requirements. Below, we’ll discuss the two most common referencing styles – APA and MLA.

Article Review in APA

When you need to compose an article review in the APA format , here is the general bibliographical entry format you should use for journal articles on your reference page:

Author’s last name, First initial. Middle initial. (Year of Publication). Name of the article. Name of the Journal, volume (number), pp. #-#. https://doi.org/xx.xxx/yyyy

Horigian, V. E., Schmidt, R. D., & Feaster, D. J. (2021). Loneliness, mental health, and substance use among US young adults during COVID-19. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 53 (1), pp. 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1080/02791072.2020.1836435

Your in-text citations should follow the author-date format like this:

If you paraphrase the source and mention the author in the text: According to Horigian et al. (2021), young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic.
If you paraphrase the source and don’t mention the author in the text: Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al., 2021).
If you quote the source: As Horigian et al. (2021) point out, there were “elevated levels of loneliness, depression, anxiety, alcohol use, and drug use among young adults during COVID-19” (p. 6).

Note that your in-text citations should include “et al.,” as in the examples above, if your article has 3 or more authors. If you have one or two authors, your in-text citations would look like this:

One author: “According to Smith (2020), depression is…” or “Depression is … (Smith, 2020).”
Two authors: “According to Smith and Brown (2020), anxiety means…” or “Anxiety means (Smith & Brown, 2020).”

Finally, in case you have to review a book or a website article, here are the general formats for citing these source types on your APA reference list.

Article Review in MLA

If your assignment requires MLA-format referencing, here’s the general format you should use for citing journal articles on your Works Cited page:

Author’s last name, First name. “Title of an Article.” Title of the Journal , vol. #, no. #, year, pp. #-#.

Horigian, Viviana E., et al. “Loneliness, Mental Health, and Substance Use Among US Young Adults During COVID-19.” Journal of Psychoactive Drugs , vol. 53, no. 1, 2021, pp. 1-9.

In-text citations in the MLA format follow the author-page citation format and look like this:

According to Horigian et al., young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (6).
Young adults experienced increased levels of loneliness, depression, and anxiety during the pandemic (Horigian et al. 6).

Like in APA, the abbreviation “et al.” is only needed in MLA if your article has 3 or more authors.

If you need to cite a book or a website page, here are the general MLA formats for these types of sources.

✅ Article Review Template

Here is a handy, universal article review template to help you move on with any review assignment. We’ve tried to make it as generic as possible to guide you in the academic process.

📝 Article Review Examples

The theory is good, but practice is even better. Thus, we’ve created three brief examples to show you how to write an article review. You can study the full-text samples by following the links.

📃 Men, Women, & Money

This article review examines a famous piece, “Men, Women & Money – How the Sexes Differ with Their Finances,” published by Amy Livingston in 2020. The author of this article claims that men generally spend more money than women. She makes this conclusion from a close analysis of gender-specific expenditures across five main categories: food, clothing, cars, entertainment, and general spending patterns. Livingston also looks at men’s approach to saving to argue that counter to the common perception of women’s light-hearted attitude to money, men are those who spend more on average.

📃 When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism

This is a review of Jonathan Heidt’s 2016 article titled “When and Why Nationalism Beats Globalism,” written as an advocacy of right-wing populism rising in many Western states. The author illustrates the case with the election of Donald Trump as the US President and the rise of right-wing rhetoric in many Western countries. These examples show how nationalist sentiment represents a reaction to global immigration and a failure of globalization.

📃 Sleep Deprivation

This is a review of the American Heart Association’s article titled “The Dangers of Sleep Deprivation.” It discusses how the national organization concerned with the American population’s cardiovascular health links the lack of high-quality sleep to far-reaching health consequences. The organization’s experts reveal how a consistent lack of sleep leads to Alzheimer’s disease development, obesity, type 2 diabetes, etc.

✏️ Article Review FAQ

A high-quality article review should summarize the assigned article’s content and offer data-backed reactions and evaluations of its quality in terms of the article’s purpose, methodology, and data used to argue the main points. It should be detailed, comprehensive, objective, and evidence-based.

The purpose of writing a review is to allow students to reflect on research quality and showcase their critical thinking and evaluation skills. Students should exhibit their mastery of close reading of research publications and their unbiased assessment.

The content of your article review will be the same in any format, with the only difference in the assignment’s formatting before submission. Ensure you have a separate title page made according to APA standards and cite sources using the parenthetical author-date referencing format.

You need to take a closer look at various dimensions of an assigned article to compose a valuable review. Study the author’s object of analysis, the purpose of their research, the chosen method, data, and findings. Evaluate all these dimensions critically to see whether the author has achieved the initial goals. Finally, offer improvement recommendations to add a critique aspect to your paper.

Scientific Article Review: Duke University
Book and Article Reviews: William & Mary, Writing Resources Center
Sample Format for Reviewing a Journal Article: Boonshoft School of Medicine
Research Paper Review – Structure and Format Guidelines: New Jersey Institute of Technology
Article Review: University of Waterloo
Article Review: University of South Australia
How to Write a Journal Article Review: University of Newcastle Library Guides
Writing Help: The Article Review: Central Michigan University Libraries
Write a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal Article: McLaughlin Library
Share to Facebook
Share to Twitter
Share to LinkedIn
Share to email

How to Write a Short Essay: Format & Examples

Short essays answer a specific question on the subject. They usually are anywhere between 250 words and 750 words long. A paper with less than 250 words isn’t considered a finished text, so it doesn’t fall under the category of a short essay. Essays of such format are required for...

Compare and Contrast Essay Outline: Template and Example

High school and college students often face challenges when crafting a compare-and-contrast essay. A well-written paper of this kind needs to be structured appropriately to earn you good grades. Knowing how to organize your ideas allows you to present your ideas in a coherent and logical manner This article by...

How to Write a Formal Essay: Format, Rules, & Example

If you’re a student, you’ve heard about a formal essay: a factual, research-based paper written in 3rd person. Most students have to produce dozens of them during their educational career.  Writing a formal essay may not be the easiest task. But fear not: our custom-writing team is here to guide...

How to Write a Narrative Essay Outline: Template & Examples

Narrative essays are unlike anything you wrote throughout your academic career. Instead of writing a formal paper, you need to tell a story. Familiar elements such as evidence and arguments are replaced with exposition and character development. The importance of writing an outline for an essay like this is hard...

How to Write a Precis: Definition, Guide, & Examples

A précis is a brief synopsis of a written piece. It is used to summarize and analyze a text’s main points. If you need to write a précis for a research paper or the AP Lang exam, you’ve come to the right place. In this comprehensive guide by Custom-Writing.org, you’ll...

How to Write a Synthesis Essay: Examples, Topics, & Outline

A synthesis essay requires you to work with multiple sources. You combine the information gathered from them to present a well-rounded argument on a topic. Are you looking for the ultimate guide on synthesis essay writing? You’ve come to the right place! In this guide by our custom writing team,...

How to Write a Catchy Hook: Examples & Techniques

Do you know how to make your essay stand out? One of the easiest ways is to start your introduction with a catchy hook. A hook is a phrase or a sentence that helps to grab the reader’s attention. After reading this article by Custom-Writing.org, you will be able to...

How to Write a Critical Thinking Essay: Examples & Outline

Critical thinking is the process of evaluating and analyzing information. People who use it in everyday life are open to different opinions. They rely on reason and logic when making conclusions about certain issues. A critical thinking essay shows how your thoughts change as you research your topic. This type...

How to Write a Process Analysis Essay: Examples & Outline

Process analysis is an explanation of how something works or happens. Want to know more? Read the following article prepared by our custom writing specialists and learn about: process analysis and its typesa process analysis outline tipsfree examples and other tips that might be helpful for your college assignment So,...

How to Write a Visual Analysis Essay: Examples & Template

A visual analysis essay is an academic paper type that history and art students often deal with. It consists of a detailed description of an image or object. It can also include an interpretation or an argument that is supported by visual evidence. In this article, our custom writing experts...

How to Write a Reflection Paper: Example & Tips

Want to know how to write a reflection paper for college or school? To do that, you need to connect your personal experiences with theoretical knowledge. Usually, students are asked to reflect on a documentary, a text, or their experience. Sometimes one needs to write a paper about a lesson...

How to Write a Character Analysis Essay: Examples & Outline

A character analysis is an examination of the personalities and actions of protagonists and antagonists that make up a story. It discusses their role in the story, evaluates their traits, and looks at their conflicts and experiences. You might need to write this assignment in school or college. Like any...

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

Article review writing format, steps, examples and illustration PDF Compiled by Mohammed Yismaw

2021, Article review writing format, steps, examples and illustration PDF Compiled by Mohammed Yismaw

The purpose of this document is to help students and researchers understand how a review of an academic journal is conducted and reported in different fields of study. Review articles in academic journals that analyze or discuss researches previously published by others, rather than reporting new research results or findings. Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article. Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic. The summary involves briefly but accurately stating the key points of the article for a reader who has not read the original article. The critique begins by summarizing the article and then analyzes and evaluates the author’s research. Summaries and critiques help you learn to synthesize information from different sources and are usually limited to two pages maximum.

Related Papers

Harald von Kortzfleisch , Christoph Kahle

Neue Technologien und Innovationen stellen heutzutage wichtige SchlÃ¼sselelemente der Wachstums und Erfolgssicherung von Unternehmen dar. Durch einen in Geschwindigkeit und IntensitÃ¤t immer schneller zunehmenden Wettbewerb nehmen Innovationen eine immer zentralere Rolle im Praxisalltag von Unternehmen ein. Dieser technische Fortschritt treibt auch in der Wissenschaft das Thema des Innovationsmanagements in den letzten Jahrzehnten immer stÃ¤rker voran und wird dort ausgiebig diskutiert. Die Bedeutung von Innovationen wÃ¤chst dabei ebenfalls aus der Sicht der Kunden, welche heutzutage viel differenzierter als frÃ¼her Produkte und Dienste nachfragen und somit Unternehmen vor neue Herausforderungen stellen. Ãberdies stellen Innovationen heute ein entscheidendes Bindeglied zwischen Marktorientierung und erhofften Unternehmenserfolg dar. Seit einigen Jahren lÃ¤sst sich eine Ãffnung der Unternehmensgrenzen fÃ¼r externe Quellen wie Kunden, Zulieferer, UniversitÃ¤ten oder teilweise auch M...

SSRN Electronic Journal

Helmut Krcmar

Dominic Lindner

Alexandra Waluszewski

Research Policy

Nuria Gonzalez Alvarez

Creativity and Innovation Management

Matti Pihlajamaa

Firms tap into user knowledge to learn about the users’ needs. While users have been recognized as a valuable source of knowledge for innovation, few studies have investigated how their knowledge is integrated into innovation processes in the context of complex products and systems (CoPS). The purpose of this study is to reveal the practices of CoPS manufacturers to facilitate user knowledge utilization for innovation. We investigate two case companies, a medical device manufacturer and an aircraft manufacturer, and report on seven managerial practices for utilizing user knowledge. We adopt the absorptive capacity model in structuring our findings and elaborate three of the model's sub-capabilities (recognition of the value of user knowledge, acquisition of user knowledge, and assimilation/transformation of user knowledge) by proposing that each is associated with a distinct managerial goal and related practices: (1) Sensitizing the organization to the innovation potential of user knowledge, (2) identifying and gaining access to suitable user knowledge, and (3) analyzing and interpreting user knowledge and integrating it into product development. Our study contributes to the innovation management literature by analyzing the capabilities required to utilize user knowledge throughout the CoPS innovation process.

Information & Management

Diffusion of digital technologies into the manufacturing industry has created new opportunities for innovation that firms must address to remain competitive. We investigate the role of customer and user knowledge in the digital innovation processes of three global B2B manufacturing companies. We find that the B2B manufacturing industry's characteristics influence how users and customers may be leveraged. Customers making the purchasing decisions are considered for knowledge about short-term changes in market needs, while users working directly with the products provide long-term guidance for digital innovation. We identify practices for acquiring, distributing, and using customer and user knowledge for digital innovation.

Journal of business market management

Patricia Sandmeier

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation

Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Innovation JEMI

Given the rising role of users in innovation processes and the increasing amount of research in this field the aim of this paper is to explore the limits of our understanding of the user innovation (UI) concept. In doing so, the study addresses four basic questions: (1) Why do users create and share innovation? (2) Who is the user-innovator? (3) What type of innovation do users create? (4) How do users innovate? The results of a systematic literature review identified the main research streams on user innovation, together with weaknesses of past research and perspectives for future studies.

Writing a Literature Review

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

A literature review is a document or section of a document that collects key sources on a topic and discusses those sources in conversation with each other (also called synthesis ). The lit review is an important genre in many disciplines, not just literature (i.e., the study of works of literature such as novels and plays). When we say “literature review” or refer to “the literature,” we are talking about the research ( scholarship ) in a given field. You will often see the terms “the research,” “the scholarship,” and “the literature” used mostly interchangeably.

Where, when, and why would I write a lit review?

There are a number of different situations where you might write a literature review, each with slightly different expectations; different disciplines, too, have field-specific expectations for what a literature review is and does. For instance, in the humanities, authors might include more overt argumentation and interpretation of source material in their literature reviews, whereas in the sciences, authors are more likely to report study designs and results in their literature reviews; these differences reflect these disciplines’ purposes and conventions in scholarship. You should always look at examples from your own discipline and talk to professors or mentors in your field to be sure you understand your discipline’s conventions, for literature reviews as well as for any other genre.

A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research methodology.

Lit reviews can also be standalone pieces, either as assignments in a class or as publications. In a class, a lit review may be assigned to help students familiarize themselves with a topic and with scholarship in their field, get an idea of the other researchers working on the topic they’re interested in, find gaps in existing research in order to propose new projects, and/or develop a theoretical framework and methodology for later research. As a publication, a lit review usually is meant to help make other scholars’ lives easier by collecting and summarizing, synthesizing, and analyzing existing research on a topic. This can be especially helpful for students or scholars getting into a new research area, or for directing an entire community of scholars toward questions that have not yet been answered.

What are the parts of a lit review?

Most lit reviews use a basic introduction-body-conclusion structure; if your lit review is part of a larger paper, the introduction and conclusion pieces may be just a few sentences while you focus most of your attention on the body. If your lit review is a standalone piece, the introduction and conclusion take up more space and give you a place to discuss your goals, research methods, and conclusions separately from where you discuss the literature itself.

Introduction:

An introductory paragraph that explains what your working topic and thesis is
A forecast of key topics or texts that will appear in the review
Potentially, a description of how you found sources and how you analyzed them for inclusion and discussion in the review (more often found in published, standalone literature reviews than in lit review sections in an article or research paper)
Summarize and synthesize: Give an overview of the main points of each source and combine them into a coherent whole
Analyze and interpret: Don’t just paraphrase other researchers – add your own interpretations where possible, discussing the significance of findings in relation to the literature as a whole
Critically Evaluate: Mention the strengths and weaknesses of your sources
Write in well-structured paragraphs: Use transition words and topic sentence to draw connections, comparisons, and contrasts.

Conclusion:

Summarize the key findings you have taken from the literature and emphasize their significance
Connect it back to your primary research question

How should I organize my lit review?

Lit reviews can take many different organizational patterns depending on what you are trying to accomplish with the review. Here are some examples:

Chronological : The simplest approach is to trace the development of the topic over time, which helps familiarize the audience with the topic (for instance if you are introducing something that is not commonly known in your field). If you choose this strategy, be careful to avoid simply listing and summarizing sources in order. Try to analyze the patterns, turning points, and key debates that have shaped the direction of the field. Give your interpretation of how and why certain developments occurred (as mentioned previously, this may not be appropriate in your discipline — check with a teacher or mentor if you’re unsure).
Thematic : If you have found some recurring central themes that you will continue working with throughout your piece, you can organize your literature review into subsections that address different aspects of the topic. For example, if you are reviewing literature about women and religion, key themes can include the role of women in churches and the religious attitude towards women.
Qualitative versus quantitative research
Empirical versus theoretical scholarship
Divide the research by sociological, historical, or cultural sources
Theoretical : In many humanities articles, the literature review is the foundation for the theoretical framework. You can use it to discuss various theories, models, and definitions of key concepts. You can argue for the relevance of a specific theoretical approach or combine various theorical concepts to create a framework for your research.

What are some strategies or tips I can use while writing my lit review?

Any lit review is only as good as the research it discusses; make sure your sources are well-chosen and your research is thorough. Don’t be afraid to do more research if you discover a new thread as you’re writing. More info on the research process is available in our "Conducting Research" resources .

As you’re doing your research, create an annotated bibliography ( see our page on the this type of document ). Much of the information used in an annotated bibliography can be used also in a literature review, so you’ll be not only partially drafting your lit review as you research, but also developing your sense of the larger conversation going on among scholars, professionals, and any other stakeholders in your topic.

Usually you will need to synthesize research rather than just summarizing it. This means drawing connections between sources to create a picture of the scholarly conversation on a topic over time. Many student writers struggle to synthesize because they feel they don’t have anything to add to the scholars they are citing; here are some strategies to help you:

It often helps to remember that the point of these kinds of syntheses is to show your readers how you understand your research, to help them read the rest of your paper.
Writing teachers often say synthesis is like hosting a dinner party: imagine all your sources are together in a room, discussing your topic. What are they saying to each other?
Look at the in-text citations in each paragraph. Are you citing just one source for each paragraph? This usually indicates summary only. When you have multiple sources cited in a paragraph, you are more likely to be synthesizing them (not always, but often
Read more about synthesis here.

The most interesting literature reviews are often written as arguments (again, as mentioned at the beginning of the page, this is discipline-specific and doesn’t work for all situations). Often, the literature review is where you can establish your research as filling a particular gap or as relevant in a particular way. You have some chance to do this in your introduction in an article, but the literature review section gives a more extended opportunity to establish the conversation in the way you would like your readers to see it. You can choose the intellectual lineage you would like to be part of and whose definitions matter most to your thinking (mostly humanities-specific, but this goes for sciences as well). In addressing these points, you argue for your place in the conversation, which tends to make the lit review more compelling than a simple reporting of other sources.

Page Content

Overview of the review report format, the first read-through, first read considerations, spotting potential major flaws, concluding the first reading, rejection after the first reading, before starting the second read-through, doing the second read-through, the second read-through: section by section guidance, how to structure your report, on presentation and style, criticisms & confidential comments to editors, the recommendation, when recommending rejection, additional resources, step by step guide to reviewing a manuscript.

When you receive an invitation to peer review, you should be sent a copy of the paper's abstract to help you decide whether you wish to do the review. Try to respond to invitations promptly - it will prevent delays. It is also important at this stage to declare any potential Conflict of Interest.

The structure of the review report varies between journals. Some follow an informal structure, while others have a more formal approach.

" Number your comments!!! " (Jonathon Halbesleben, former Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Informal Structure

Many journals don't provide criteria for reviews beyond asking for your 'analysis of merits'. In this case, you may wish to familiarize yourself with examples of other reviews done for the journal, which the editor should be able to provide or, as you gain experience, rely on your own evolving style.

Formal Structure

Other journals require a more formal approach. Sometimes they will ask you to address specific questions in your review via a questionnaire. Or they might want you to rate the manuscript on various attributes using a scorecard. Often you can't see these until you log in to submit your review. So when you agree to the work, it's worth checking for any journal-specific guidelines and requirements. If there are formal guidelines, let them direct the structure of your review.

In Both Cases

Whether specifically required by the reporting format or not, you should expect to compile comments to authors and possibly confidential ones to editors only.

Following the invitation to review, when you'll have received the article abstract, you should already understand the aims, key data and conclusions of the manuscript. If you don't, make a note now that you need to feedback on how to improve those sections.

The first read-through is a skim-read. It will help you form an initial impression of the paper and get a sense of whether your eventual recommendation will be to accept or reject the paper.

Keep a pen and paper handy when skim-reading.

Try to bear in mind the following questions - they'll help you form your overall impression:

What is the main question addressed by the research? Is it relevant and interesting?
How original is the topic? What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
Is the paper well written? Is the text clear and easy to read?
Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented? Do they address the main question posed?
If the author is disagreeing significantly with the current academic consensus, do they have a substantial case? If not, what would be required to make their case credible?
If the paper includes tables or figures, what do they add to the paper? Do they aid understanding or are they superfluous?

While you should read the whole paper, making the right choice of what to read first can save time by flagging major problems early on.

Editors say, " Specific recommendations for remedying flaws are VERY welcome ."

Examples of possibly major flaws include:

Drawing a conclusion that is contradicted by the author's own statistical or qualitative evidence
The use of a discredited method
Ignoring a process that is known to have a strong influence on the area under study

If experimental design features prominently in the paper, first check that the methodology is sound - if not, this is likely to be a major flaw.

You might examine:

The sampling in analytical papers
The sufficient use of control experiments
The precision of process data
The regularity of sampling in time-dependent studies
The validity of questions, the use of a detailed methodology and the data analysis being done systematically (in qualitative research)
That qualitative research extends beyond the author's opinions, with sufficient descriptive elements and appropriate quotes from interviews or focus groups

Major Flaws in Information

If methodology is less of an issue, it's often a good idea to look at the data tables, figures or images first. Especially in science research, it's all about the information gathered. If there are critical flaws in this, it's very likely the manuscript will need to be rejected. Such issues include:

Insufficient data
Unclear data tables
Contradictory data that either are not self-consistent or disagree with the conclusions
Confirmatory data that adds little, if anything, to current understanding - unless strong arguments for such repetition are made

If you find a major problem, note your reasoning and clear supporting evidence (including citations).

After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.

The First Paragraph

This should state the main question addressed by the research and summarize the goals, approaches, and conclusions of the paper. It should:

Help the editor properly contextualize the research and add weight to your judgement
Show the author what key messages are conveyed to the reader, so they can be sure they are achieving what they set out to do
Focus on successful aspects of the paper so the author gets a sense of what they've done well

The Second Paragraph

This should provide a conceptual overview of the contribution of the research. So consider:

Is the paper's premise interesting and important?
Are the methods used appropriate?
Do the data support the conclusions?

After drafting these two paragraphs, you should be in a position to decide whether this manuscript is seriously flawed and should be rejected (see the next section). Or whether it is publishable in principle and merits a detailed, careful read through.

Even if you are coming to the opinion that an article has serious flaws, make sure you read the whole paper. This is very important because you may find some really positive aspects that can be communicated to the author. This could help them with future submissions.

A full read-through will also make sure that any initial concerns are indeed correct and fair. After all, you need the context of the whole paper before deciding to reject. If you still intend to recommend rejection, see the section "When recommending rejection."

Once the paper has passed your first read and you've decided the article is publishable in principle, one purpose of the second, detailed read-through is to help prepare the manuscript for publication. You may still decide to recommend rejection following a second reading.

" Offer clear suggestions for how the authors can address the concerns raised. In other words, if you're going to raise a problem, provide a solution ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Preparation

To save time and simplify the review:

Don't rely solely upon inserting comments on the manuscript document - make separate notes
Try to group similar concerns or praise together
If using a review program to note directly onto the manuscript, still try grouping the concerns and praise in separate notes - it helps later
Note line numbers of text upon which your notes are based - this helps you find items again and also aids those reading your review

Now that you have completed your preparations, you're ready to spend an hour or so reading carefully through the manuscript.

As you're reading through the manuscript for a second time, you'll need to keep in mind the argument's construction, the clarity of the language and content.

With regard to the argument’s construction, you should identify:

Any places where the meaning is unclear or ambiguous
Any factual errors
Any invalid arguments

You may also wish to consider:

Does the title properly reflect the subject of the paper?
Does the abstract provide an accessible summary of the paper?
Do the keywords accurately reflect the content?
Is the paper an appropriate length?
Are the key messages short, accurate and clear?

Not every submission is well written. Part of your role is to make sure that the text’s meaning is clear.

Editors say, " If a manuscript has many English language and editing issues, please do not try and fix it. If it is too bad, note that in your review and it should be up to the authors to have the manuscript edited ."

If the article is difficult to understand, you should have rejected it already. However, if the language is poor but you understand the core message, see if you can suggest improvements to fix the problem:

Are there certain aspects that could be communicated better, such as parts of the discussion?
Should the authors consider resubmitting to the same journal after language improvements?
Would you consider looking at the paper again once these issues are dealt with?

On Grammar and Punctuation

Your primary role is judging the research content. Don't spend time polishing grammar or spelling. Editors will make sure that the text is at a high standard before publication. However, if you spot grammatical errors that affect clarity of meaning, then it's important to highlight these. Expect to suggest such amendments - it's rare for a manuscript to pass review with no corrections.

A 2010 study of nursing journals found that 79% of recommendations by reviewers were influenced by grammar and writing style (Shattel, et al., 2010).

1. The Introduction

A well-written introduction:

Sets out the argument
Summarizes recent research related to the topic
Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge
Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area
Gives a clear idea of the target readership, why the research was carried out and the novelty and topicality of the manuscript

Originality and Topicality

Originality and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research. For example, it's impossible to argue that there is a conflict in current understanding by referencing articles that are 10 years old.

Authors may make the case that a topic hasn't been investigated in several years and that new research is required. This point is only valid if researchers can point to recent developments in data gathering techniques or to research in indirectly related fields that suggest the topic needs revisiting. Clearly, authors can only do this by referencing recent literature. Obviously, where older research is seminal or where aspects of the methodology rely upon it, then it is perfectly appropriate for authors to cite some older papers.

Editors say, "Is the report providing new information; is it novel or just confirmatory of well-known outcomes ?"

It's common for the introduction to end by stating the research aims. By this point you should already have a good impression of them - if the explicit aims come as a surprise, then the introduction needs improvement.

2. Materials and Methods

Academic research should be replicable, repeatable and robust - and follow best practice.

Replicable Research

This makes sufficient use of:

Control experiments
Repeated analyses
Repeated experiments

These are used to make sure observed trends are not due to chance and that the same experiment could be repeated by other researchers - and result in the same outcome. Statistical analyses will not be sound if methods are not replicable. Where research is not replicable, the paper should be recommended for rejection.

Repeatable Methods

These give enough detail so that other researchers are able to carry out the same research. For example, equipment used or sampling methods should all be described in detail so that others could follow the same steps. Where methods are not detailed enough, it's usual to ask for the methods section to be revised.

Robust Research

This has enough data points to make sure the data are reliable. If there are insufficient data, it might be appropriate to recommend revision. You should also consider whether there is any in-built bias not nullified by the control experiments.

Best Practice

During these checks you should keep in mind best practice:

Standard guidelines were followed (e.g. the CONSORT Statement for reporting randomized trials)
The health and safety of all participants in the study was not compromised
Ethical standards were maintained

If the research fails to reach relevant best practice standards, it's usual to recommend rejection. What's more, you don't then need to read any further.

3. Results and Discussion

This section should tell a coherent story - What happened? What was discovered or confirmed?

Certain patterns of good reporting need to be followed by the author:

They should start by describing in simple terms what the data show
They should make reference to statistical analyses, such as significance or goodness of fit
Once described, they should evaluate the trends observed and explain the significance of the results to wider understanding. This can only be done by referencing published research
The outcome should be a critical analysis of the data collected

Discussion should always, at some point, gather all the information together into a single whole. Authors should describe and discuss the overall story formed. If there are gaps or inconsistencies in the story, they should address these and suggest ways future research might confirm the findings or take the research forward.

4. Conclusions

This section is usually no more than a few paragraphs and may be presented as part of the results and discussion, or in a separate section. The conclusions should reflect upon the aims - whether they were achieved or not - and, just like the aims, should not be surprising. If the conclusions are not evidence-based, it's appropriate to ask for them to be re-written.

5. Information Gathered: Images, Graphs and Data Tables

If you find yourself looking at a piece of information from which you cannot discern a story, then you should ask for improvements in presentation. This could be an issue with titles, labels, statistical notation or image quality.

Where information is clear, you should check that:

The results seem plausible, in case there is an error in data gathering
The trends you can see support the paper's discussion and conclusions
There are sufficient data. For example, in studies carried out over time are there sufficient data points to support the trends described by the author?

You should also check whether images have been edited or manipulated to emphasize the story they tell. This may be appropriate but only if authors report on how the image has been edited (e.g. by highlighting certain parts of an image). Where you feel that an image has been edited or manipulated without explanation, you should highlight this in a confidential comment to the editor in your report.

6. List of References

You will need to check referencing for accuracy, adequacy and balance.

Where a cited article is central to the author's argument, you should check the accuracy and format of the reference - and bear in mind different subject areas may use citations differently. Otherwise, it's the editor’s role to exhaustively check the reference section for accuracy and format.

You should consider if the referencing is adequate:

Are important parts of the argument poorly supported?
Are there published studies that show similar or dissimilar trends that should be discussed?
If a manuscript only uses half the citations typical in its field, this may be an indicator that referencing should be improved - but don't be guided solely by quantity
References should be relevant, recent and readily retrievable

Check for a well-balanced list of references that is:

Helpful to the reader
Fair to competing authors
Not over-reliant on self-citation
Gives due recognition to the initial discoveries and related work that led to the work under assessment

You should be able to evaluate whether the article meets the criteria for balanced referencing without looking up every reference.

7. Plagiarism

By now you will have a deep understanding of the paper's content - and you may have some concerns about plagiarism.

Identified Concern

If you find - or already knew of - a very similar paper, this may be because the author overlooked it in their own literature search. Or it may be because it is very recent or published in a journal slightly outside their usual field.

You may feel you can advise the author how to emphasize the novel aspects of their own study, so as to better differentiate it from similar research. If so, you may ask the author to discuss their aims and results, or modify their conclusions, in light of the similar article. Of course, the research similarities may be so great that they render the work unoriginal and you have no choice but to recommend rejection.

"It's very helpful when a reviewer can point out recent similar publications on the same topic by other groups, or that the authors have already published some data elsewhere ." (Editor feedback)

Suspected Concern

If you suspect plagiarism, including self-plagiarism, but cannot recall or locate exactly what is being plagiarized, notify the editor of your suspicion and ask for guidance.

Most editors have access to software that can check for plagiarism.

Editors are not out to police every paper, but when plagiarism is discovered during peer review it can be properly addressed ahead of publication. If plagiarism is discovered only after publication, the consequences are worse for both authors and readers, because a retraction may be necessary.

For detailed guidelines see COPE's Ethical guidelines for reviewers and Wiley's Best Practice Guidelines on Publishing Ethics .

8. Search Engine Optimization (SEO)

After the detailed read-through, you will be in a position to advise whether the title, abstract and key words are optimized for search purposes. In order to be effective, good SEO terms will reflect the aims of the research.

A clear title and abstract will improve the paper's search engine rankings and will influence whether the user finds and then decides to navigate to the main article. The title should contain the relevant SEO terms early on. This has a major effect on the impact of a paper, since it helps it appear in search results. A poor abstract can then lose the reader's interest and undo the benefit of an effective title - whilst the paper's abstract may appear in search results, the potential reader may go no further.

So ask yourself, while the abstract may have seemed adequate during earlier checks, does it:

Do justice to the manuscript in this context?
Highlight important findings sufficiently?
Present the most interesting data?

Editors say, " Does the Abstract highlight the important findings of the study ?"

If there is a formal report format, remember to follow it. This will often comprise a range of questions followed by comment sections. Try to answer all the questions. They are there because the editor felt that they are important. If you're following an informal report format you could structure your report in three sections: summary, major issues, minor issues.

Give positive feedback first. Authors are more likely to read your review if you do so. But don't overdo it if you will be recommending rejection
Briefly summarize what the paper is about and what the findings are
Try to put the findings of the paper into the context of the existing literature and current knowledge
Indicate the significance of the work and if it is novel or mainly confirmatory
Indicate the work's strengths, its quality and completeness
State any major flaws or weaknesses and note any special considerations. For example, if previously held theories are being overlooked

Major Issues

Are there any major flaws? State what they are and what the severity of their impact is on the paper
Has similar work already been published without the authors acknowledging this?
Are the authors presenting findings that challenge current thinking? Is the evidence they present strong enough to prove their case? Have they cited all the relevant work that would contradict their thinking and addressed it appropriately?
If major revisions are required, try to indicate clearly what they are
Are there any major presentational problems? Are figures & tables, language and manuscript structure all clear enough for you to accurately assess the work?
Are there any ethical issues? If you are unsure it may be better to disclose these in the confidential comments section

Minor Issues

Are there places where meaning is ambiguous? How can this be corrected?
Are the correct references cited? If not, which should be cited instead/also? Are citations excessive, limited, or biased?
Are there any factual, numerical or unit errors? If so, what are they?
Are all tables and figures appropriate, sufficient, and correctly labelled? If not, say which are not

Your review should ultimately help the author improve their article. So be polite, honest and clear. You should also try to be objective and constructive, not subjective and destructive.

You should also:

Write clearly and so you can be understood by people whose first language is not English
Avoid complex or unusual words, especially ones that would even confuse native speakers
Number your points and refer to page and line numbers in the manuscript when making specific comments
If you have been asked to only comment on specific parts or aspects of the manuscript, you should indicate clearly which these are
Treat the author's work the way you would like your own to be treated

Most journals give reviewers the option to provide some confidential comments to editors. Often this is where editors will want reviewers to state their recommendation - see the next section - but otherwise this area is best reserved for communicating malpractice such as suspected plagiarism, fraud, unattributed work, unethical procedures, duplicate publication, bias or other conflicts of interest.

However, this doesn't give reviewers permission to 'backstab' the author. Authors can't see this feedback and are unable to give their side of the story unless the editor asks them to. So in the spirit of fairness, write comments to editors as though authors might read them too.

Reviewers should check the preferences of individual journals as to where they want review decisions to be stated. In particular, bear in mind that some journals will not want the recommendation included in any comments to authors, as this can cause editors difficulty later - see Section 11 for more advice about working with editors.

You will normally be asked to indicate your recommendation (e.g. accept, reject, revise and resubmit, etc.) from a fixed-choice list and then to enter your comments into a separate text box.

Recommending Acceptance

If you're recommending acceptance, give details outlining why, and if there are any areas that could be improved. Don't just give a short, cursory remark such as 'great, accept'. See Improving the Manuscript

Recommending Revision

Where improvements are needed, a recommendation for major or minor revision is typical. You may also choose to state whether you opt in or out of the post-revision review too. If recommending revision, state specific changes you feel need to be made. The author can then reply to each point in turn.

Some journals offer the option to recommend rejection with the possibility of resubmission – this is most relevant where substantial, major revision is necessary.

What can reviewers do to help? " Be clear in their comments to the author (or editor) which points are absolutely critical if the paper is given an opportunity for revisio n." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Recommending Rejection

If recommending rejection or major revision, state this clearly in your review (and see the next section, 'When recommending rejection').

Where manuscripts have serious flaws you should not spend any time polishing the review you've drafted or give detailed advice on presentation.

Editors say, " If a reviewer suggests a rejection, but her/his comments are not detailed or helpful, it does not help the editor in making a decision ."

In your recommendations for the author, you should:

Give constructive feedback describing ways that they could improve the research
Keep the focus on the research and not the author. This is an extremely important part of your job as a reviewer
Avoid making critical confidential comments to the editor while being polite and encouraging to the author - the latter may not understand why their manuscript has been rejected. Also, they won't get feedback on how to improve their research and it could trigger an appeal

Remember to give constructive criticism even if recommending rejection. This helps developing researchers improve their work and explains to the editor why you felt the manuscript should not be published.

" When the comments seem really positive, but the recommendation is rejection…it puts the editor in a tough position of having to reject a paper when the comments make it sound like a great paper ." (Jonathon Halbesleben, Editor of Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology)

Visit our Wiley Author Learning and Training Channel for expert advice on peer review.

Watch the video, Ethical considerations of Peer Review

How to Write an Article Review: Tips, Outline, Format

Have you been assigned an article review paper, but you are unsure where to start, or what is a review article at all? There is no need to worry, as EssayService has put together a top guide for you! Find out all about an article review to master your assignment.

What is an Article Review?

In simple terms, an article review essay is like a summary and evaluation of another professional or expert's work. It may also be referred to as a literature review that includes an outline of the most recent research on the subject, or a critical review that focuses on a specific article with smaller scope. Article review can be used for many reasons; for example, a teacher or lecturer may wish to introduce their students to a new subject by reviewing a professional's piece. You can also learn about the most important works of specialists in your industry by looking at relevant article review examples.

Also, a newspaper article review example could be a journalist writing a critique about another competitor's published work.

In comparison, a book review article example could be critiqued by a fellow author or even a student in the chosen field.

Depending on the critique criteria and the work being reviewed, there could also be certain points asked for addition which should be checked and noted by the lecturer or supervisor. Otherwise, follow the article review guidelines from our write my essay service to complete the assignment in no time.

Key points when writing an article review:

Use the article review template from our paper writing service to get through the assignment as fast as possible so you will not waste any time.

How to Start an Article Review?

Firstly read the work being reviewed as much as possible and look up key phrases and words that are not understood.
Discuss the work with other professionals or colleagues to collect more opinions and get a more balanced impression.
Highlight important sections or sentences and refer this to your knowledge in the topic, do you agree or disagree and what does this contribute to the field?
Then re-write the key arguments and findings into your own words this will help gain better understanding into the paper. This can be just written as an outline also and will help decide which points are wanted to discuss later.

If you feel you do not have enough time to create a critique worthy of your time, then come to EssayService and order a custom Article review online.

You can order essay independent of type, for example:

nursing essay;
law essay writing;
history essays.

The best way to write an effective essay would be to draw up a plan or outline of what needs to be covered and use it for guidance throughout the critique.

Article Review Formatting

There is no one-fits-all article format you can follow in your review. In fact, the formatting is dictated by the citation style specified by your professor in the task requirements. Thus, be sure to clarify the preferred style before you jump straight to writing to handle the given assignment right.

APA Format Article Review

Writing an APA style article review, you will most likely use articles from journals, websites, and newspapers. For each source, you will have to create properly formatted bibliographical entries.

Here is how to write an article review APA:

Journal: Author’s last name, First and middle initial. (Year of Publication). Publication Title. Periodical Title, Volume(Issue), pp.-pp.
Website: Last name, initials. (Date of Publication). Title. Retrieved from {link}
Newspaper: Last name, initials. (Date of Publication). Title. Magazine Title, pp. xx-xx.

MLA Format Article Review

Tips for citing sources in an article review MLA format:

Journal: Last name, First name Middle initial. “Title.” Journal Title Series Volume. Issue (Year of Publication): Page(s). Database Name. Web. Date Accessed.
Website: Last, First M. “Title.” Website Title. Publisher, Date Published. Web. Date Accessed.
Newspaper: Last, First M. “Title.” Newspaper Title [City] Date of Publication: Page(s). Print.

Article Review Outline

Planning out an outline for your paper will help writing and to put it together so therefore saving you time in the long run.

Some questions to help with the outline of a critique:

What does the article set out to do or prove?
Are the main ideas clear and defined?
How substantial is the evidence?
Where does the article fit in its specific field?
Does it provide new knowledge on the topic?
What are the central theories and assumptions?
Is the writer conclusive at getting their point across?

Here is a typical article review format to follow:

Use our article review template to get through the assignment as fast as possible so you will not waste any time.

Article Review Title

Firstly start with creating a title for your critique, this should be something to do with the focus of the work that is being reviewed. An approach could be to make it descriptive or also in a more creative way think of something that intrigues the reader. After the title, this is a good place to correctly cite the paper being critiqued and include the important details for example, the author, title of publication, any page references. The style in which the citation is written will depend on which is best for this type of work being reviewed.

Article Review Introduction

The introduction should be a brief glimpse into what the author was writing about and any other details the audience will find interesting. Maybe some background details on the piece that is not already known or something that contributes to the review itself. It is a good idea to start by introducing the work at the start of the paragraph and then include a ' hook '. Include the writer's thesis if there is one and put it at the end but include your own thesis towards the critique near the beginning of this section.

Article Review Body

When constructing the summary section, write down the important points and findings in the piece in your own words. Include how the claims are supported and backed up with evidence but use direct quotes as sparing as possible. Do not put in any information known to professionals in the field or topic, but detail any conclusions the work came to. Make sure the paper is not just copied word for word and is actually summarized by yourself; this will also help the review stage.

To make an accurate critique, break down the work and express opinions on whether it achieves its goals and how useful it is in explaining the topics for an article review. Decide if the paper contributes to its field and is important and credible to the given field. Back up all the claims with evidence from the summary or another source. If using another text, remember to cite it correctly in the bibliography section. Look at how strong the points are and do they contribute to the argument. Try to identify any biases the writer might have and use this to make a fair critique. This part is only for opinions of the piece's significance, not including whether you liked it. Furthermore, the different types of audiences that would benefit from the paper can be mentioned in this section.

Article Review Conclusion

In the conclusion section of the critique, there should only be one or two paragraphs in which a summary of key points and opinions in the piece are included. Also, summarize the paper's significance to its field and how accurate the work is. Depending on the type of critique or work evaluated, it is also possible to include comments on future research or the topic to be discussed further.

If other sources have been used, construct a bibliography section and correctly cite all works utilized in the critique.

The APA format is very common in an article review and stands for American Psychology Association. This will include a 'references list' at the end of the critique and in-text citations, mentioning the author's last name, page number, and publication date.

There are also MLA and Chicago formats for citations with slight differences in a name, like using a 'works cited' page for MLA. More can be found in this guide on the subtle differences between the types of citation methods under the heading 'Creating a bibliography.'

Article Review Example

Article review writing tips.

If you are interested in best scholarships for high school seniors , the following tips will be handy while writing your essay or article:

Allow enough time to complete the research and writing of the critique. The number one problem with creating a critique is running out of time to make it the best it can be. This can be avoided by effective planning and keeping on time with the deadlines you set out.
Collect twice more research than you think is needed to write a review. This will help when coming to the writing stage as not all the information collected will be used in the final draft.
Write in a style that is compatible with the work being critiqued. This will be better for whoever requested the critique and also will make paper easier to construct.
A summary and evaluation must be written. Do not leave out either part as one complements the other and is vital to create a critique worth reading.
Be clear and explain well every statement made about the piece . Everything that is unknown to professionals in the field should be explained and all comments should be easy to follow for the reader.
Do not just describe the work, analyze and interpret it. The critique should be in depth and give the audience some detailed interpretations of the work in a professional way.
Give an assessment of the quality in the writing and of what standard it is. Evaluate every aspect in the paper so that the audience can see where it fits into the rest of the related works. Give opinions based on fact and do not leave any comments without reason as this will not count for anything.

How to Write an Article Review?

Writing a review article is not that hard if you know what steps to take. Below is a step-by-step guide on how to write a review example quickly and easily.

Before You Start

Before you start writing your review essay, there are a few pre-writing steps to take. The pre-writing process should consist of the following steps:

Pick the subject of your review (if it wasn’t specified by your professor);
Read the article fully multiple times;
Summarize the main ideas, points, and claims made in the article;
Define the positive (strong) aspects;
Identify the gaps or inconsistencies;
Find the questions that remained unanswered.

All these steps are needed to help you define the direction for your review article and find the main ideas you’d like to cover in it.

After you review articles and define the key ideas, gaps, and other details, map out your future paper by creating a detailed outline.

Here are the core elements that must be included:

Pre-title page;
Corresponding author details (optional);
Running head (only for the APA style);
Summary page (optional);
Title page;
Introduction;
References/Works Cited;
Suggested Reading page (optional);
Tables and Figure Legends (if required by the professor).

This step is vital to organize your thoughts and ensure a proper structure of your work. Thus, be sure not to skip this step.

When you have an outline, students can move on to the writing stage by formulating compelling titles for their article reviews. Titles should be declarative, interrogative, or descriptive to reflect the core focus of the paper.

Article Citation

After the title should follow a proper citation of the piece you are going to review. Write a citation according to the required style, and feel free to check out a well-written article review example to see how it should look like.

Article Identification

Start the first paragraph of your review with concise and clear article identification that specifies its title, author, name of the resource (e.g., journal, web, etc.), and the year of publication.

Following the identification, write a short introductory paragraph. It should be to the point and state a clear thesis for your review.

Summary and Critique

In the main body of your article review, you should first make a detailed but not too extensive summary of the article you reviewed, its main ideas, statements, and findings. In this part, you should also reflect on the conclusion made by the author of the original article.

After a general summary should follow an objective critique. In this part of your paper, you have to state and analyze the main strengths and weaknesses of the article. Also, you need to point out any gaps or unanswered questions that are still there. And clarify your stance on the author’s assertions.

Lastly, you need to craft a compelling conclusion that recaps the key points of your review and gives the final, logical evaluation of the piece that was reviewed.

After this, proofread your work and submit it.

No Time Left For Your Due Assignment

Now we hope you understand how to write a review of an article. However, we know that writing a great article review requires a lot of time to properly research the work. To save your precious time, visit EssayService, where our team of top essay writers will help you. The team can even provide you with the best article review topics! You can learn more at the college essay writing service page where we have free guides with all the essay writing tips and tricks!

Frequently asked questions

She was flawless! first time using a website like this, I've ordered article review and i totally adored it! grammar punctuation, content - everything was on point

This writer is my go to, because whenever I need someone who I can trust my task to - I hire Joy. She wrote almost every paper for me for the last 2 years

Term paper done up to a highest standard, no revisions, perfect communication. 10s across the board!!!!!!!

I send him instructions and that's it. my paper was done 10 hours later, no stupid questions, he nailed it.

Sometimes I wonder if Michael is secretly a professor because he literally knows everything. HE DID SO WELL THAT MY PROF SHOWED MY PAPER AS AN EXAMPLE. unbelievable, many thanks

New Posts to Your Inbox!

Stay in touch

Chaos to Clarity: Structuring Your Literature Review Format

Master literature review format! Learn key sections, effective citation & analysis tips to write a strong academic review.

Ever wondered how to dive into a mountain of books and articles and come up with something that not just makes sense but shines new light on a topic? What if there was a way to neatly tie together all that information, spot what’s missing, and maybe even pave the way for discoveries?

That’s what you are going to learn in this article, literature reviews—a place where chaos meets order, and where your insights could set the stage for the next big thing. Let’s break down the literature review format , your essential guide to properly writing a literature review.

Dissecting Literature Review Format

There are 6 main sections to make a note of while writing a literature review. Those are:

The Introduction Section

Topic background, conceptual framework.

Synthesis and Evaluation in Literature Reviews
Conclusion for Your Literature Review
Reference List in Your Literature Review

Also Read: Essential Components of a Literature Review

The introduction of your literature review is where you set the stage for the entire document. It’s your first opportunity to engage your readers and provide a clear blueprint of what your review will cover and why it matters. This section does more than merely introduce the topic; it establishes the context, defines the scope, and outlines the purpose and objectives of your literature review.

Things to keep in mind while writing an introduction:

Craft a compelling opening
Establish the Context and Justification
Define the Scope and Objectives
Lay out the Structure
Give an overview of the Structure

The “Topic Background” section of a literature review serves as the cornerstone for understanding the evolution and current state of the subject matter. It is divided into two crucial sub-sections: Historical Context and Current State of the Topic .

Delving into these areas provides you with a comprehensive backdrop against which the literature review is framed, enriching the reader’s understanding of why the topic is of interest and what has influenced its development to the current state.

Historical Context

The Historical Context is fundamental in setting the stage for the entire literature review. This section is not just a chronology of events or developments; it’s a curated narrative that highlights the key milestones and turning points that have significantly impacted the topic.

By examining the historical evolution, the review establishes a timeline of how understanding and perspectives have shifted over the years.

Summary Of Key Historical Developments

This involves identifying and summarizing the major breakthroughs, shifts in thinking, or seminal works that have shaped the topic. It’s important to focus on developments that have a direct relevance to the current understanding and state of the subject. For example, if the topic is about the evolution of renewable energy technologies, this part would outline the initial discovery and use of renewable sources, significant technological innovations, and pivotal policy decisions that have influenced the field.

Relevance Of Historical Context To The Topic

After outlining the key historical developments, it’s crucial to connect these events to the present topic. This means discussing how past events have laid the groundwork for current theories, practices, or debates within the field. It involves analyzing the impact of historical milestones on the subject matter, and explaining how they have contributed to current knowledge, challenges, and research questions. This section makes it clear why understanding history is essential for anyone researching or studying the topic today.

Current State Of The Topic

Moving from the historical context, the review transitions to the present with the Current State of the Topic. This part assesses the latest research, trends, debates, and technological advancements that define the subject area at the moment.

Current Trends Or Updates

Here, the focus shifts to what is happening in the field right now. This could include recent research findings, emerging theories, new methodologies, or the latest technological innovations. The aim is to provide a snapshot of the current research landscape, identifying what themes, questions, or problems are being actively explored. For instance, in the context of digital marketing, this might involve discussing the rise of artificial intelligence in customer relationship management or the impact of social media trends on marketing strategies.

Impact Of These Trends On The Subject Matter

The final step is to assess the implications of these current trends for the topic. This includes considering how recent developments have advanced the field, the challenges they present, and the opportunities they open up for future research. It’s about connecting the dots between what’s happening now and what it means for the subject area moving forward. This not only helps to frame the research questions that the literature review will address but also sets the stage for identifying gaps in the current knowledge, thereby guiding the direction of future studies.

Also Read: What is a literature review? Get the concept and start using it

When doing a literature review, it’s essential to lay a solid foundation for your exploration through a well-defined conceptual framework. This framework acts as a compass, guiding your review’s direction by establishing the key concepts, theories, and perspectives that underpin your topic.

Definitions And Descriptions

Before diving into the depths of your literature review, it’s crucial to start with the basics. This means clearly identifying and defining the key concepts related to your topic. Think of this as setting the stage for your readers, ensuring they have a clear understanding of the fundamental terms and ideas you will be exploring.

Key Concepts Related To The Topic

Begin by listing the essential concepts central to your review. These are the building blocks of your topic, the terms that will repeatedly appear throughout your exploration.

Detailed Definitions And Their Relevance

Once you’ve identified these concepts, provide precise and comprehensive definitions for each. Don’t hesitate to explore different dimensions or interpretations of these terms, as this can enrich your readers’ understanding. More importantly, discuss why these concepts are crucial to your review. How do they shape the scope of your exploration? How do they relate to each other and to the broader topic? This step ensures that your readers are not just familiar with the terms but also understand their significance within your review’s context.

Theoretical Perspectives

With the key concepts clearly defined, it’s time to frame your literature review within relevant theoretical perspectives. This is where you align your exploration with existing theories, models, or frameworks that provide insights into your topic.

Important Theories Related To The Topic

Identify the theories that are foundational to your topic. These could range from well-established theories that have long guided research in your field to more contemporary models that offer new insights. For example, a review of organizational behavior might draw on theories of motivation, leadership styles, and organizational culture.

Evaluation Of These Theories And Their Influence On The Topic

After pinpointing the relevant theories, critically assess their contributions to the topic. Consider questions like: How have these theories shaped understanding of the topic? What insights do they offer, and where do they fall short? Are there controversies or debates surrounding these theories? This evaluation not only deepens your review’s analytical depth but also positions your work within the larger academic conversation.

Synthesis And Evaluation In Literature Reviews

The “Synthesis and Evaluation” section is where your literature review truly comes to life. Here, you’re not just summarizing what others have said; you’re weaving together diverse strands of research to present a cohesive picture of the topic at hand.

Comparison And Contrast Of Sources

Synthesizing the literature involves more than listing findings from various studies; it’s about drawing connections between them, highlighting areas of agreement and dispute, and weaving these into a narrative that adds depth and breadth to your understanding of the topic.

Comparative Analysis

Start by grouping your sources based on similarities in their findings, methodologies, or theoretical approaches. This clustering will help you identify trends and common themes across the literature. For example, if several studies have found similar outcomes under comparable conditions, these findings can be grouped to strengthen a particular argument or observation about the topic.

Contrasts Or Conflicts Among Sources

Equally important is the identification of discrepancies in the literature. Do some studies present findings that directly contradict others? Are there differences in how researchers have interpreted similar data? Highlighting these conflicts is crucial, as it can indicate areas where the topic is still evolving or where further research is needed. It also shows your ability to critically engage with the material, a hallmark of scholarly rigor.

Analysis Of Gaps In Literature

One of your primary tasks in the synthesis and evaluation section is to identify what’s missing in the current body of research. This requires a critical eye and a deep understanding of both your topic and the broader field in which it resides.

Identification Of Research Gaps

As you comb through the literature, ask yourself: What questions remain unanswered? Are there underexplored areas or populations? Perhaps certain methodologies have been overlooked, or theoretical perspectives have not been considered. Pinpointing these gaps is not a mere exercise in academic critique; it’s a vital step in advancing knowledge within the field.

Implications Of These Gaps For Future Research

Highlighting gaps in the literature sets the stage for future studies. It’s where you, as the reviewer, can suggest new research directions that could fill these voids or further explore the topic. Discussing the implications of these gaps not only enriches your review but also contributes to the ongoing scholarly conversation.

Conclusion For Your Literature Review

The conclusion of your literature review is where you bring together all the strands of your argument, synthesizing the insights gained and highlighting the significance of your findings. It’s not just a summary of what has been discussed; it’s an opportunity to underscore the relevance of the review, reflect on the broader implications of your synthesis and evaluation, and suggest directions for future research.

Summary Of Key Points

Start your conclusion by succinctly summarizing the main points and findings of your review. This isn’t about rehashing every detail but rather about distilling the essence of your exploration. Highlight the critical trends, themes, and conflicts you’ve uncovered, and remind your readers of the significance of these discoveries.

Relevance And Implications Of The Literature For The Topic

Next, focus on the relevance and implications of your findings. This involves stepping back to consider the bigger picture—how does your literature review contribute to the understanding of your topic? Discuss the impact of the trends and gaps you’ve identified on the field, and elaborate on how your synthesis of the literature advances or enriches existing knowledge.

Reflection On The Research Process

Reflecting on the research process itself can provide valuable insights. Consider discussing the challenges you encountered in navigating the literature, such as dealing with conflicting findings or the scarcity of research on certain aspects of your topic.

Directions For Future Research

One of the most critical aspects of your conclusion is to suggest directions for future research. Be as precise as possible, whether suggesting new methodologies, theoretical frameworks, or specific topics that warrant deeper investigation.

Final Thoughts

End your conclusion with a strong closing statement that reiterates the value of your literature review. Emphasize the importance of continued research on your topic and the potential it holds for advanced understanding within your field. A compelling conclusion reaffirms the significance of your work, leaving your readers with a clear sense of its contribution and the urgent need for further exploration.

Reference List In Your Literature Review

The Reference List is the backbone of your literature review, providing a comprehensive compilation of all the sources you’ve cited throughout your exploration. It’s not merely a formality but a crucial component that lends credibility and rigor to your work.

Importance Of Accuracy And Consistency

The cornerstone of a reliable Reference List is accuracy and consistency in citation style. Whether you’re adhering to APA , MLA , Chicago , or another academic citation format, it’s vital to apply the rules with precision. This includes correctly formatting author names, publication dates, titles, and publication details.

Organizing Your References

While different citation styles have their own rules for listing references, organizing them in a way that enhances readability and accessibility is universally beneficial. Alphabetical order by the author’s last name is the most common method, as it allows readers to easily locate sources.

Comprehensive Coverage

Your Reference List should be exhaustive, including every work you’ve cited in your review. This extends beyond journal articles and books to encompass reports, conference papers, online resources, and any other materials that have informed your analysis.

The Value Of Annotations

While not always required, providing brief annotations for key sources can add tremendous value to your Reference List. An annotated bibliography offers a succinct summary of each source’s main arguments, methodologies, and findings, as well as its relevance to your literature review.

Digital Accessibility

In today’s digital age, considering the accessibility of your referenced works can greatly enhance the utility of your Reference List. Whenever possible, include Digital Object Identifiers (DOIs) or stable URLs for online sources, ensuring readers can directly access the materials.

Also read: What Is A DOI? Exploring The Purpose And Importance

Reflecting On Ethical Scholarship

Finally, your Reference List is a reflection of ethical scholarship. By accurately citing all the sources that have informed your work, you’re honoring the intellectual property of other researchers and upholding the academic community’s standards of integrity and respect.

Crafting a meticulous Reference List is an essential aspect of your literature review that underscores the credibility, depth, and ethical foundation of your research. By adhering to the principles of accuracy, comprehensiveness, and accessibility, you not only facilitate further inquiry but also pay homage to the collective endeavor of knowledge advancement in your field.

Related Article: Navigating the AMA Citation Format: Best Tips for Referencing

In conclusion, writing a literature review involves meticulous structuring, beginning with an engaging introduction that sets the stage, followed by a detailed exploration of the topic’s background, including its historical context and current state.

A robust conceptual framework lays the groundwork for analysis, leading to a critical synthesis and evaluation of relevant literature.

The conclusion ties together the review’s key findings and implications, while the reference list meticulously catalogs all cited works. Mastering each section ensures a comprehensive and insightful review, essential for advancing academic understanding and contributing to scholarly discussions.

Related Article: Preliminary Literature Review: A Guide for Effective Research

Science Figures, Graphical Abstracts, And Infographics For Your Research

Revolutionize your research with infographics from Mind the Graph . From science figures, graphical abstracts to infographics, you can unleash the power of creative visuals with this user-friendly platform and make your research captivating.

Subscribe to our newsletter

Exclusive high quality content about effective visual communication in science.

Unlock Your Creativity

Create infographics, presentations and other scientifically-accurate designs without hassle — absolutely free for 7 days!

About Sowjanya Pedada

Sowjanya is a passionate writer and an avid reader. She holds MBA in Agribusiness Management and now is working as a content writer. She loves to play with words and hopes to make a difference in the world through her writings. Apart from writing, she is interested in reading fiction novels and doing craftwork. She also loves to travel and explore different cuisines and spend time with her family and friends.

Content tags

Thursday, February 23: The Clark Library is closed today.

APA Style (7th Edition) Citation Guide: Journal Articles

Introduction
Journal Articles
Magazine/Newspaper Articles
Books & Ebooks
Government & Legal Documents
Biblical Sources
Secondary Sources
Films/Videos/TV Shows
How to Cite: Other
Additional Help

Journal article from library database with doi - one author, journal article from library database with doi - multiple authors, journal article from a website - one author.

Journal Article- No DOI

Note: All citations should be double spaced and have a hanging indent in a Reference List.

A "hanging indent" means that each subsequent line after the first line of your citation should be indented by 0.5 inches.

This Microsoft support page contains instructions about how to format a hanging indent in a paper.

APA 7th. ed. Journal Article Reference Checklist

If an item has no author, start the citation with the article title.

When an article has one to twenty authors, all authors' names are cited in the References List entry. When an article has twenty-one or more authors list the first nineteen authors followed by three spaced ellipse points (. . .) , and then the last author's name. Rules are different for in-text citations; please see the examples provided.

Cite author names in the order in which they appear on the source, not in alphabetical order (the first author is usually the person who contributed the most work to the publication).

Italicize titles of journals, magazines and newspapers. Do not italicize or use quotation marks for the titles of articles.

Capitalize only the first letter of the first word of the article title. If there is a colon in the article title, also capitalize the first letter of the first word after the colon.

If an item has no date, use the short form n.d. where you would normally put the date.

Volume and Issue Numbers

Italicize volume numbers but not issue numbers.

Retrieval Dates

Most articles will not need these in the citation. Only use them for online articles from places where content may change often, like a free website or a wiki.

Page Numbers

If an article doesn't appear on continuous pages, list all the page numbers the article is on, separated by commas. For example (4, 6, 12-14)

Library Database

Do not include the name of a database for works obtained from most academic research databases (e.g. APA PsycInfo, CINAHL) because works in these resources are widely available. Exceptions are Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, ERIC, ProQuest Dissertations, and UpToDate.

Include the DOI (formatted as a URL: https://doi.org/...) if it is available. If you do not have a DOI, include a URL if the full text of the article is available online (not as part of a library database). If the full text is from a library database, do not include a DOI, URL, or database name.

In the Body of a Paper

Books, Journals, Reports, Webpages, etc.: When you refer to titles of a “stand-alone work,” as the APA calls them on their APA Style website, such as books, journals, reports, and webpages, you should italicize them. Capitalize words as you would for an article title in a reference, e.g., In the book Crying in H Mart: A memoir , author Michelle Zauner (2021) describes her biracial origin and its impact on her identity.

Article or Chapter: When you refer to the title of a part of a work, such as an article or a chapter, put quotation marks around the title and capitalize it as you would for a journal title in a reference, e.g., In the chapter “Where’s the Wine,” Zauner (2021) describes how she decided to become a musician.

The APA Sample Paper below has more information about formatting your paper.

APA 7th ed. Sample Paper

Author's Last Name, First Initial. Second Initial if Given. (Year of Publication). Title of article: Subtitle if any. Name of Journal, Volume Number (Issue Number), first page number-last page number. https://doi.org/doi number

Smith, K. F. (2022). The public and private dialogue about the American family on television: A second look. Journal of Media Communication, 50 (4), 79-110. https://doi.org/10.1152/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02864.x

Note: The DOI number is formatted as a URL: https://doi.org/10.1152/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02864.xIf

In-Text Paraphrase:

(Author's Last Name, Year)

Example: (Smith, 2000)

In-Text Quote:

(Author's Last Name, Year, p. Page Number)

Example: (Smith, 2000, p. 80)

Author's Last Name, First Initial. Second Initial if Given., & Last Name of Second Author, First Initial. Second Initial if Given. (Year of Publication). Title of article: Subtitle if any. Name of Journal, Volume Number (Issue Number), first page number-last page number. https://doi.org/doi number

Note: Separate the authors' names by putting a comma between them. For the final author listed add an ampersand (&) after the comma and before the final author's last name.

Note: In the reference list invert all authors' names; give last names and initials for only up to and including 20 authors. When a source has 21 or more authors, include the first 19 authors’ names, then three ellipses (…), and add the last author’s name. Don't include an ampersand (&) between the ellipsis and final author.

Note : For works with three or more authors, the first in-text citation is shortened to include the first author's surname followed by "et al."

Reference List Examples

Two to 20 Authors

Case, T. A., Daristotle, Y. A., Hayek, S. L., Smith, R. R., & Raash, L. I. (2011). College students' social networking experiences on Facebook. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 3 (2), 227-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2008.12.010

21 or more authors

Kalnay, E., Kanamitsu, M., Kistler, R., Collins, W., Deaven, D., Gandin, L., Iredell, M., Saha, J., Mo, K. C., Ropelewski, C., Wang, J., Leetma, A., . . . Joseph, D. (1996). The NCEP/NCAR 40-year reanalysis project. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society , 77 (3), 437-471. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477(1996)077<0437:TNYRP>2.0.CO;2

In-Text Citations

Two Authors/Editors

(Case & Daristotle, 2011)

Direct Quote: (Case & Daristotle, 2011, p. 57)

Three or more Authors/Editors

(Case et al., 2011)

Direct Quote: (Case et al., 2011, p. 57)

Author's Last Name, First Initial. Second Initial if Given. (Year of Publication). Title of article: Subtitle if any. Name of Journal, Volume Number (Issue Number if given). URL

Flachs, A. (2010). Food for thought: The social impact of community gardens in the Greater Cleveland Area. Electronic Green Journal, 1 (30). http://escholarship.org/uc/item/6bh7j4z4

Example: (Flachs, 2010)

Example: (Flachs, 2010, Conclusion section, para. 3)

Note: In this example there were no visible page numbers or paragraph numbers; in this case you can cite the section heading and the number of the paragraph in that section to identify where your quote came from. If there are no page or paragraph numbers and no marked section, leave this information out.

Journal Article - No DOI

Full-Text Available Online (Not as Part of a Library Database):

Steinberg, M. P., & Lacoe, J. (2017). What do we know about school discipline reform? Assessing the alternatives to suspensions and expulsions. Education Next, 17 (1), 44–52. https://www.educationnext.org/what-do-we-know-about-school-discipline-reform-suspensions-expulsions/

Example: (Steinberg & Lacoe, 2017)

(Author's Last Name, Year, p. Page number)

Example: (Steinberg & Lacoe, 2017, p. 47)

Full-Text Available in Library Database:

Jungers, W. L. (2010). Biomechanics: Barefoot running strikes back. Nature, 463 (2), 433-434.

Example: (Jungers, 2010)

Example: (Jungers, 2010, p. 433)

<< Previous: How to Cite: Common Sources
Next: Magazine/Newspaper Articles >>
Last Updated: Apr 30, 2024 1:29 PM
URL: https://libguides.up.edu/apa

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Publications
Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

Advanced Search
Journal List
J Mark Access Health Policy
v.11(1); 2023
PMC10392303

Rapid literature review: definition and methodology

Beata smela.

a Assignity, Cracow, Poland

Mondher Toumi

b Public Health Department, Aix-Marseille University, Marseille, France

Karolina Świerk

Clement francois, małgorzata biernikiewicz.

c Studio Slowa, Wroclaw, Poland

Emilie Clay

d Clever-Access, Paris, France

Laurent Boyer

Introduction: A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data. The objective was to identify and summarize available information regarding different approaches to defining RLR and the methodology applied to the conduct of such reviews.

Methods: The Medline and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched using the set of keywords and their combination related to the targeted and rapid review, as well as design, approach, and methodology. Of the 3,898 records retrieved, 12 articles were included.

Results: Specific definition of RLRs has only been developed in 2021. In terms of methodology, the RLR should be completed within shorter timeframes using simplified procedures in comparison to SLRs, while maintaining a similar level of transparency and minimizing bias. Inherent components of the RLR process should be a clear research question, search protocol, simplified process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assurance.

Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR and the best approaches to perform it. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more work is needed to define the most robust approaches.

Introduction

A systematic literature review (SLR) summarizes the results of all available studies on a specific topic and provides a high level of evidence. Authors of the SLR have to follow an advanced plan that covers defining a priori information regarding the research question, sources they are going to search, inclusion criteria applied to choose studies answering the research question, and information regarding how they are going to summarize findings [ 1 ].

The rigor and transparency of SLRs make them the most reliable form of literature review [ 2 ], providing a comprehensive, objective summary of the evidence for a given topic [ 3 , 4 ]. On the other hand, the SLR process is usually very time-consuming and requires a lot of human resources. Taking into account a high increase of newly published data and a growing need to analyze information in the fastest possible way, rapid literature reviews (RLRs) often replace standard SLRs.

There are several guidelines on the methodology of RLRs [ 5–11 ]; however, only recently, one publication from 2021 attempted to construct a unified definition [ 11 ]. Generally, by RLRs, researchers understand evidence synthesis during which some of the components of the systematic approach are being used to facilitate answering a focused research question; however, scope restrictions and a narrower search strategy help to make the project manageable in a shorter time and to get the key conclusions faster [ 4 ].

The objective of this research was to collect and summarize available information on different approaches to the definition and methodology of RLRs. An RLR has been run to capture publications providing data that fit the project objective.

To find publications reporting information on the methodology of RLRs, searches were run in the Medline and EMBASE databases in November 2022. The following keywords were searched for in titles and abstracts: ‘targeted adj2 review’ OR ‘focused adj2 review’ OR ‘rapid adj2 review’, and ‘methodology’ OR ‘design’ OR ‘scheme’ OR ‘approach’. The grey literature was identified using Google Scholar with keywords including ‘targeted review methodology’ OR ‘focused review methodology’ OR ‘rapid review methodology’. Only publications in English were included, and the date of publication was restricted to year 2016 onward in order to identify the most up-to-date literature. The reference lists of each included article were searched manually to obtain the potentially eligible articles. Titles and abstracts of the retrieved records were first screened to exclude articles that were evidently irrelevant. The full texts of potentially relevant papers were further reviewed to examine their eligibility.

A pre-defined Excel grid was developed to extract the following information related to the methodology of RLR from guidelines:

Definition,
Research question and searches,
Studies selection,
Data extraction and quality assessment,
Additional information.

There was no restriction on the study types to be analyzed; any study reporting on the methodology of RLRs could be included: reviews, practice guidelines, commentaries, and expert opinions on RLR relevant to healthcare policymakers or practitioners. The data extraction and evidence summary were conducted by one analyst and further examined by a senior analyst to ensure that relevant information was not omitted. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus.

Studies selection

A total of 3,898 records (3,864 articles from a database search and 34 grey literature from Google Scholar) were retrieved. After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts of 3,813 articles were uploaded and screened. The full texts of 43 articles were analyzed resulting in 12 articles selected for this review, including 7 guidelines [ 5–11 ] on the methodology of RLRs, together with 2 papers summarizing the results of the Delphi consensus on the topic [ 12 , 13 ], and 3 publications analyzing and assessing different approaches to RLRs [ 4 , 14 , 15 ].

Overall, seven guidelines were identified: from the World Health Organization (WHO) [ 5 ], National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT) [ 7 ], the UK government [ 8 ], the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine [ 9 ], the Cochrane group [ 6 , 11 ], and one multi-national review [ 10 ]. Among the papers that did not describe the guidelines, Gordon et al. [ 4 ] proposed 12 tips for conducting a rapid review in the right settings and discussed why these reviews may be more beneficial in some circumstances. The objective of work conducted by Tricco et al. [ 13 ] and Pandor et al. [ 12 ] was to collect and compare perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, industry, journal editors, and healthcare providers, and to reach a consensus outlining the domains to consider when deciding on approaches for RLRs. Haby et al. [ 14 ] run a rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies to find out the best way to conduct an RLR in health policy and practice. In Tricco et al. (2022) [ 15 ], JBI position statement for RLRs is presented.

From all the seven identified guidelines information regarding definitions the authors used for RLRs, approach to the PICOS criteria and search strategy development, studies selection, data extractions, quality assessment, and reporting were extracted.

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group developed methods guidance based on scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, as well as surveys sent to Cochrane representative and discussion among those with expertise [ 11 ]. They analyzed over 300 RLRs or RLR method papers and based on the methodology of those studies, constructed a broad definition RLR, one that meets a minimum set of requirements identified in the thematic analysis: ‘ A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting a variety of methods to produce evidence in a resource-efficient manner .’ This interpretation aligns with more than 50% of RLRs identified in this study. The authors additionally provided several other definitions, depending on specific situations or requirements (e.g., when RLR is produced on stakeholder’s request). It was additionally underlined that RLRs should be driven by the need of timely evidence for decision-making purposes [ 11 ].

Rapid reviews vary in their objective, format, and methods used for evidence synthesis. This is a quite new area, and still no agreement on optimal methods can be found [ 5 ]. All of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs are completed within shorter timeframes than SLRs, and also lack of time is one of the main reasons they are conducted. It has been suggested that most rapid reviews are conducted within 12 weeks; however, some of the resources suggest time between a few weeks to no more than 6 months [ 5 , 6 ]. Some of the definitions are highlighting that RLRs follow the SLR process, but certain phases of the process are simplified or omitted to retrieve information in a time-saving way [ 6 , 7 ]. Different mechanisms are used to enhance the timeliness of reviews. They can be used independently or concurrently: increasing the intensity of work by intensifying the efforts of multiple analysts by parallelization of tasks, using review shortcuts whereby one or more systematic review steps may be reduced, automatizing review steps by using new technologies [ 5 ]. The UK government report [ 8 ] referred to two different RLRs: in the form of quick scoping reviews (QSR) or rapid evidence assessments (REA). While being less resource and time-consuming compared to standard SLRs, QSRs and REAs are designed to be similarly transparent and to minimize bias. QSRs can be applied to rather open-ended questions, e.g., ‘what do we know about something’ but both, QSRs and REAs, provide an understanding of the volume and characteristics of evidence on a specific topic, allowing answering questions by maximizing the use of existing data, and providing a clear picture of the adequacy of existing evidence [ 8 ].

Research questions and searches

The guidelines suggest creating a clear research question and search protocol at the beginning of the project. Additionally, to not duplicate RLRs, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group encourages all people working on RLRs to consider registering their search protocol with PROSPERO, the international prospective register of reviews; however, so far they are not formally registered in most cases [ 5 , 6 ]. They also recommend involving key stakeholders (review users) to set and refine the review question, criteria, and outcomes, as well as consulting them through the entire process [ 11 ].

Regarding research questions, it is better to structure them in a neutral way rather than focus on a specific direction for the outcome. By doing so, the researcher is in a better position to identify all the relevant evidence [ 7 ]. Authors can add a second, supportive research question when needed [ 8 ]. It is encouraged to limit the number of interventions, comparators and outcomes, to focus on the ones that are most important for decision-making [ 11 ]. Useful could be also reviewing additional materials, e.g., SLRs on the topic, as well as conducting a quick literature search to better understand the topic before starting with RLRs [ 7 ]. In SLRs researchers usually do not need to care a lot about time spent on creating PICOS, they need to make sure that the scope is broad enough, and they cannot use many restrictions. When working on RLRs, a reviewer may spend more or less time defining each of the components of the study question, and the main step is making sure that PICOS addresses the needs of those who requested the rapid review, and at the same time, it is feasible within the required time frame [ 7 ]. Search protocol should contain an outline of how the following review steps are to be carried out, including selected search keywords and a full strategy, a list of data sources, precise inclusion and exclusion criteria, a strategy for data extraction and critical appraisal, and a plan of how the information will be synthesized [ 8 ].

In terms of searches running, in most cases, an exhaustive process will not be feasible. Researchers should make sure that the search is effective and efficient to produce results in a timely manner. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group recommends involving an information specialist and conducting peer review of at least one search strategy [ 11 ]. According to the rapid review guidebook by McMaster University [ 7 ], it is important that RLRs, especially those that support policy and program decisions, are being fed by the results of a body of literature, rather than single studies, when possible. It would result in more generalizable findings applied at the level of a population and serve more realistic findings for program decisions [ 7 ]. It is important to document the search strategy, together with a record of the date and any date limits of the search, so that it can easily be run again, modified, or updated. Furthermore, the information on the individual databases included in platform services should always be reported, as this depends on organizations’ subscriptions and must be included for transparency and repeatability [ 7 , 8 ]. Good solution for RLRs is narrowing the scope or searching a limited number of databases and other sources [ 7 ]. Often, the authors use the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases. In most reviews, two or more databases are searched, and common limits are language (usually restricted to English), date, study design, and geographical area. Some RLRs include searching of grey literature; however, contact with authors is rather uncommon [ 5 , 8 ]. According to the flexible framework for restricted systematic review published by the University of Oxford, the search should be run in at least one major scientific database such as PubMed, and one other source, e.g., Google Scholar [ 9 ]. Grey literature and unpublished evidence may be particularly needed and important for intervention questions. It is related to the fact that studies that do not report the effects of interventions are less likely to be published [ 8 ]. If there is any type of evidence that will not be considered by the RLRs, e.g., reviews or theoretical and conceptual studies, it should also be stated in the protocol together with justification [ 8 ]. Additionally, authors of a practical guide published by WHO suggest using a staged search to identify existing SLRs at the beginning, and then focusing on studies with other designs [ 5 ]. If a low number of citations have been retrieved, it is acceptable to expand searches, remove some of the limits, and add additional databases and sources [ 7 ].

Searching for RLRs is an iterative process, and revising the approach is usually needed [ 7 ]. Changes should be confirmed with stakeholders and should be tracked and reflected in the final report [ 5 ].

The next step in the rapid review is the selection of studies consisting of two phases: screening of titles and abstracts, and analysis of full texts. Prior to screening initiation, it is recommended to conduct a pilot exercise using the same 30–50 abstracts and 5–10 full-texts for the entire screening team in order to calibrate and test the review form [ 11 ]. In contrast to SLRs, it can be done by one reviewer with or without verification by a second one. If verification is performed, usually the second reviewer checks only a subset of records and compares them. Cochrane Group, in contrast, recommends a stricter approach: at least 20% of references should be double-screened at titles and abstracts stage, and while the rest of the references may be screened by one reviewer, the excluded items need to be re-examined by second reviewer; similar approach is used in full-text screening [ 11 ]. This helps to ensure that bias was reduced and that the PICOS criteria are applied in a relevant way [ 5 , 8 , 9 , 11 ]. During the analysis of titles and abstracts, there is no need to report reasons for exclusion; however, they should be tracked for all excluded full texts [ 7 ].

Data extraction and quality assessment

According to the WHO guide, the most common method for data extraction in RLRs is extraction done by a single reviewer with or without partial verification. The authors point out that a reasonable approach is to use a second reviewer to check a random sample of at least 10% of the extractions for accuracy. Dual performance is more necessary for the extraction of quantitative results than for descriptive study information. In contrast, Cochrane group recommends that second reviewer should check the correctness and completeness of all data [ 11 ]. When possible, extractions should be limited to key characteristics and outcomes of the study. The same approach to data extraction is also suggested for a quality assessment process within rapid reviews [ 5 , 9 , 11 ]. Authors of the guidebook from McMaster University highlight that data extraction should be done ideally by two reviewers independently and consensus on the discrepancies should always be reached [ 7 ]. The final decision on the approach to this important step of review should depend on the available time and should also reflect the complexity of the research question [ 9 ].

For screening, analysis of full texts, extractions, and quality assessments, researchers can use information technologies to support them by making these review steps more efficient [ 5 ].

Before data reporting, a reviewer should prepare a document with key message headings, executive summary, background related to the topic and status of the current knowledge, project question, synthesis of findings, conclusions, and recommendations. According to the McMaster University guidebook, a report should be structured in a 1:2:20 format, that is, one page for key messages, two pages for an executive summary, and a full report of up to 20 pages [ 7 ]. All the limitations of the RLRs should be analyzed, and conclusions should be drawn with caution [ 5 ]. The quality of the accumulated evidence and the strength of recommendations can be assessed using, e.g., the GRADE system [ 5 ]. When working on references quoting, researchers should remember to use a primary source, not secondary references [ 7 ]. It would be worth considering the support of some software tools to automate reporting steps. Additionally, any standardization of the process and the usage of templates can support report development and enhance the transparency of the review [ 5 ].

Ideally, all the review steps should be completed during RLRs; however, often some steps may need skipping or will not be completed as thoroughly as should because of time constraints. It is always crucial to decide which steps may be skipped, and which are the key ones, depending on the project [ 7 ]. Guidelines suggest that it may be helpful to invite researchers with experience in the operations of SLRs to participate in the rapid review development [ 5 , 9 ]. As some of the steps will be completed by one reviewer only, it is important to provide them with relevant training at the beginning of the process, as well as during the review, to minimize the risk of mistakes [ 5 ].

Additional information

Depending on the policy goal and available resources and deadlines, methodology of the RLRs may be modified. Wilson et al. [ 10 ] provided extensive guidelines for performing RLR within days (e.g., to inform urgent internal policy discussions and/or management decisions), weeks (e.g., to inform public debates), or months (e.g., to inform policy development cycles that have a longer timeline, but that cannot wait for a traditional full systematic review). These approaches vary in terms of data synthesis, types of considered evidence and project management considerations.

In shortest timeframes, focused questions and subquestions should be formulated, typically to conduct a policy analysis; the report should consist of tables along with a brief narrative summary. Evidence from SLRs is often considered, as well as key informant interviews may be conducted to identify additional literature and insights about the topic, while primary studies and other types of evidence are not typically feasible due to time restrictions. The review would be best conducted with 1–2 reviewers sharing the work, enabling rapid iterations of the review. As for RLRs with longer timeline (weeks), these may use a mix of policy, systems and political analysis. Structure of the review would be similar to shorter RLRs – tabular with short narrative summary, as the timeline does not allow for comprehensive synthesis of data. Besides SLRs, primary studies and other evidence may be feasible in this timeframe, if obtained using the targeted searches in the most relevant databases. The review team should be larger, and standardized procedures for reviewing of the results and data extraction should be applied. In contrast to previous timeframe, merit review process may be feasible. For both timeframes, brief consultations with small transdisciplinary team should be conducted at the beginning and in the final stage of the review to discuss important matters.

For RLRs spanning several months, more comprehensive methodology may be adapted in terms of data synthesis and types of evidence. However, authors advise that review may be best conducted with a small review team in order to allow for more in-depth interpretation and iteration.

Studies analyzing methodology

There have been two interesting publications summarizing the results of Delphi consensus on the RLR methodology identified and included in this review [ 12 , 13 ].

Tricco et al. [ 13 ] first conducted an international survey and scoping review to collect information on the possible approaches to the running of rapid reviews, based on which, they employed a modified Delphi method that included inputs from 113 stakeholders to explore the most optimized approach. Among the six most frequent rapid review approaches (not all detailed here) being evaluated, the approach that combines inclusion of published literature only, a search of more than one database and limitations by date and language, study selection by one analyst, data extraction, and quality assessment by one analyst and one verifier, was perceived as the most feasible approach (72%, 81/113 responses) with the potentially lowest risk of bias (12%, 12/103). The approach ranked as the first one when considering timelines assumes updating of the search from a previously published review, no additional limits on search, studies selection and data extraction done by one reviewer, and no quality assessment. Finally, based on the publication, the most comprehensive RLRs can be made by moving on with the following rules: searching more than one database and grey literature and using date restriction, and assigning one reviewer working on screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment ( Table 1 ). Pandor et al. [ 12 ] introduced a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) that were produced through the Delphi consensus of international experts through an iterative and rigorous process. Participants were asked to assess the importance of predefined items in four domains related to the rapid review process: interaction with commissioners, understanding the evidence base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. All items assigned to four domains achieved > 70% of consensus, and in that way, the first consensus-driven tool has been created that supports authors of RLRs in planning and deciding on approaches.

Six most frequent approaches to RLRs (adapted from Tricco et al. [ 13 ]).

Haby et al. [ 14 ] run searches of 11 databases and two websites and developed a comprehensive overview of the methodology of RLRs. With five SLRs and one RCT being finally included, they identified the following approaches used in RLRs to make them faster than full SLRs: limiting the number and scope of questions, searching fewer databases, limited searching of grey literature, restrictions on language and date (e.g., English only, most recent publications), updating the existing SLRs, eliminating or limiting hand searches of reference lists, noniterative search strategies, eliminating consultation with experts, limiting dual study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, minimal data synthesis with short concise conclusions or recommendations. All the SLRs included in this review were consistent in stating that no agreed definition of rapid reviews is available, and there is still no final agreement on the best methodological rules to be followed.

Gordon et al. [ 4 ] explained the advantages of performing a focused review and provided 12 tips for its conduction. They define focused reviews as ‘a form of knowledge synthesis in which the components of the systematic process are applied to facilitate the analysis of a focused research question’. The first tip presented by the authors is related to deciding if a focused review is a right solution for the considered project. RLRs will suit emerging topics, approaches, or assessments where early synthesis can support doctors, policymakers, etc., but also can direct future research. The second, third, and fourth tips highlight the importance of running preliminary searches and considering narrowing the results by using reasonable constraints taking into account the local context, problems, efficiency perspectives, and available time. Further tips include creating a team of experienced reviewers working on the RLRs, thinking about the target journal from the beginning of work on the rapid review, registering the search protocol on the PROSPERO registry, and the need for contacting authors of papers when data available in publications are missing or incongruent. The last three tips are related to the choice of evidence synthesis method, using the visual presentation of data, and considering and describing all the limitations of the focused review.

Finally, a new publication by Tricco et al. from 2022, describing JBI position statement [ 15 ] underlined that for the time being, there is no specific tool for critical appraisal of the RLR’s methodological quality. Instead, reviewers may use available tools to assess the risk of bias or quality of SLRs, like ROBIS, the JBI critical appraisal tools, or the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR).

Inconsistency in the definitions and methodologies of RLR

Although RLR was broadly perceived as an approach to quicken the conduct of conventional SLR, there is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR, so as to the best approaches to perform it. Only in 2021, a study proposing unified definition was published; however, it is important to note that the most accurate definition was only matching slightly over 50% of papers analysed by the authors, which underlines the lack of homogeneity in the field [ 11 ]. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more evidence is needed to define the most robust approaches [ 5 ].

Diverse terms are used to describe the RLR, including ‘rapid review’, focused systematic review’, ‘quick scoping reviews’, and ‘rapid evidence assessments’. Although the general principles of conducting RLR are to accelerate the whole process, complexity was seen in the methodologies used for RLRs, as reflected in this study. Also, inconsistencies related to the scope of the questions, search strategies, inclusion criteria, study screening, full-text review, quality assessment, and evidence presentation were implied. All these factors may hamper decision-making about optimal methodologies for conducting rapid reviews, and as a result, the efficiency of RLR might be decreased. Additionally, researchers may tend to report the methodology of their reviews without a sufficient level of detail, making it difficult to appraise the quality and robustness of their work.

Advantages and weaknesses of RLR

Although RLR used simplified approaches for evidence synthesis compared with SLR, the methodologies for RLR should be replicable, rigorous, and transparent to the greatest extent [ 16 ]. When time and resources are limited, RLR could be a practical and efficient tool to provide the summary of evidence that is critical for making rapid clinical or policy-related decisions [ 5 ]. Focusing on specific questions that are of controversy or special interest could be powerful in reaffirming whether the existing recommendation statements are still appropriate [ 17 ].

The weakness of RLR should also be borne in mind, and the trade-off of using RLR should be carefully considered regarding the thoroughness of the search, breadth of a research question, and depth of analysis [ 18 ]. If allowed, SLR is preferred over RLR considering that some relevant studies might be omitted with narrowed search strategies and simplified screening process [ 14 ]. Additionally, omitting the quality assessment of included studies could result in an increased risk of bias, making the comprehensiveness of RLR compromised [ 13 ]. Furthermore, in situations that require high accuracy, for example, where a small relative difference in an intervention has great impacts, for the purpose of drafting clinical guidelines, or making licensing decisions, a comprehensive SLR may remain the priority [ 19 ]. Therefore, clear communications with policymakers are recommended to reach an agreement on whether an RLR is justified and whether the methodologies of RLR are acceptable to address the unanswered questions [ 18 ].

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Mapping the enhancing effects of additive manufacturing technology adoption on supply chain agility

Open access
Published: 23 May 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

Bardia Naghshineh ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4455-5062 1

60 Accesses

Explore all metrics

Given the proclaimed importance of additive manufacturing (AM) for generating agile supply chains, this study draws on the dynamic capabilities view to investigate the enhancing effects of adopting this digital technology on supply chain agility (SCA). To this end, relevant pieces of evidence are systematically gathered from a sample of 101 high-quality peer-reviewed journal articles at the intersection of AM technology and supply chain management.This information is then analyzed and synthesized to holistically map the features of AM technology adoption that enhance SCA. As a result, 42 features of AM technology adoption are identified that enhance thirteen different dimensions of SCA. The derived map explicitly indicates which features of AM technology adoption enhance which dimensions of SCA. Hence, this map can be used as a strategic tool by managers and policymakers who wish to explore different ways of enhancing SCA via AM technology adoption. This would, in turn, enable the adopting firm to deal with erratic business environments and dynamic supply chains in an agile manner, and therefore gain a competitive advantage. Moreover, based on the identified “white space” in the derived map, multiple questions are put forward that form a research agenda for future research.

Artificial intelligence-driven innovation for enhancing supply chain resilience and performance under the effect of supply chain dynamism: an empirical investigation

Exploring the challenges and benefits for scaling agile project management to large projects: a review

Artificial intelligence and big data analytics for supply chain resilience: a systematic literature review

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

Additive manufacturing (AM) technology, otherwise known as three-dimensional (3D) printing, has received remarkable attention from many industrial firms in recent years. This is mainly due to the different adoption features of this digital technology that empower the agile manufacture of customized and innovative products to respond to erratic customer demands (Candi and Beltagui 2019 ), especially when time is a crucial factor. This digital technology uses 3D model data to additively (i.e., layer by layer) join materials on a build platform and create a final part/product (ISO/ASTM 52,900 2021 ). AM technology is said to bring about “more agility and responsiveness” in many firms that operate in uncertain market environments and dynamic supply chains (Waller and Fawcett 2014 ). Oftentimes, such firms are forced to cope with supply chain disruptions caused by unforeseen events, and AM technology can grant them the speed and agility they need for business continuity. This assertion is endorsed by Kunovjanek and Wankmüller ( 2020 ), who analyzed the global AM response to the COVID-19 pandemic, stating that the speed and agility of the firms that used AM technology “to supply novel products was astonishing.”

Durach et al. ( 2017 ) propose that “supply chain agility, as a fundamental supply chain capability, is likely to increase as a result of AM introduction.” However, their study does not present detailed results regarding the enhancing effects of AM technology adoption on supply chain agility (SCA). Moreover, neither Verboeket and Krikke ( 2019 ) nor Kunovjanek et al. ( 2020 ) in their literature reviews explicitly explain the effects of AM technology on SCA. They only note that AM technology adoption leads to increased responsiveness as a supply chain performance outcome. In this sense, SCA is regarded as a fundamental supply chain capability that increases the responsiveness of the supply chain and subsequently improves its performance. Nevertheless, these reviews do not clearly explain the role of AM technology adoption in enhancing SCA as a precursor to increased supply chain responsiveness and performance. More recently, Khan and Manzoor ( 2021 ) reported that AM technology played an important role in enabling many supply chains to quickly respond to the COVID-19 pandemic, while Meng et al. ( 2022 ) briefly noted that AM adoption contributes to SCA. Similarly, none of these reviews comprehensively looks into the ways AM technology adoption can enhance SCA. While there are dispersed pieces of evidence in some studies that claim AM adoption improves SCA, to date, no study has taken a holistic approach to map the enhancing effects of adopting this digital technology on SCA. This knowledge shortfall is also highlighted in the systematic search and review performed by Naghshineh and Carvalho ( 2022a ).

From a strategic point of view, overcoming this gap is important because it assists managers and policymakers in appraising the dimensions of SCA that tend to be affected by AM technology adoption, as well as the ensuing implications for their firms’ supply chain management processes. Therefore, this study aims to systematically gather, analyze, and synthesize the dispersed pieces of evidence in the literature to holistically map the enhancing effects of AM technology adoption on SCA. To do this, this study identifies different features of AM technology adoption that tend to enhance certain dimensions of SCA. Generally, this has proven to be a reasonable approach in different studies at the intersection of AM technology adoption and supply chain management, e.g., Kunovjanek et al. ( 2020 ), Patil et al. ( 2022 ), Naghshineh et al. ( 2023 ), among others. This holds true since different features of AM technology adoption define its positive effects on fundamental supply chain capabilities such as agility and resilience (Durach et al. 2017 ; Naghshineh and Carvalho 2022a ). Hence, by developing a comprehensive outlook on which AM adoption features enhance which dimensions of SCA, it would be possible to fill this gap in the body of literature.

In the conceptualization process of this study, the dynamic capabilities view was employed as the theoretical lens, which is an extension of the resource-based view of the firm (Teece et al. 1997 ). According to the resource-based view, the main focus of the firm is on accumulating different resources, including technology, to gain a competitive advantage (Wernerfelt 1984 ), failing to consciously consider the dynamic market environment in which the firm operates. However, based on the dynamic capabilities view, a firm may use technology as a resource to purposefully develop the necessary capabilities (e.g., agility) to adapt to the dynamic market environment, and therefore gain a competitive advantage (Teece et al. 1997 ). Moreover, in the dynamic capabilities view, the notion of agility as a dynamic supply chain capability becomes quite relevant (Aslam et al. 2018 ), which indicates a firm’s capability to quickly respond to changes in the supply chain and market environment (Dubey et al. 2018 ). This is especially true in the context of digital supply chain transformation via AM adoption, as various features of this digital technology tend to enable the adopting firm to enhance its agility, and thus quickly respond to changing market needs (Shashi et al. 2020 ; Belhadi et al. 2022 ). In other words, viewing the subject matter through this theoretical lens helps explain the importance of AM technology adoption for developing agility as a dynamic supply chain capability that enables the adopting firm to deal with “rapidly changing environments” (Teece et al. 1997 ). Therefore, in line with the dynamic capabilities view of the firm toward technology adoption, the main objective of this study is to comprehensively identify the features of AM technology adoption that enhance different dimensions of SCA, and in doing so, also explore the understudied areas (“white space”) that would benefit from further research (Frankel et al. 2005 ).

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2 , the methodological approach and findings are explained. In Sect. 3 , the implications of this research are presented. Finally, in Sect. 4 , concluding remarks are noted.

2 Methodological approach

In this study, a systematic review was performed to extensively look for relevant information in the extant literature following a transparent and replicable process (Tranfield et al. 2003 ). More specifically, given that the existing studies do not comprehensively outline the enhancing effects of AM technology adoption on SCA, a systemtaic review was conducted to rigorously gather, analyze, and synthesize relevant pieces of evidence to address this gap, and subsequently come up with a research agenda. This systematic review was performed in line with the established procedures set forth by Tranfield et al. ( 2003 ). Figure 1 presents an overview of the methodological approach taken in this study.

Overview of the methodological approach

2.1 Research questions

As elaborated in the introduction section, the objective of this study is to comprehensively map the enhancing effects of AM technology adoption on SCA by identifying the AM adoption features that tend to enhance certain dimensions of SCA, and subsequently highlight the understudied areas (“white space”) that would help devise a detailed research agenda. Therefore, given this research objective, the following research questions (RQs) will be answered:

What features of AM technology adoption tend to enhance SCA?

What dimensions of SCA are enhanced by AM technology adoption?

2.2 Literature search and article selection

In the first step of this procedure, a comprehensive search string was formulated and applied to the Scopus and Web of Science databases (see Table 1 ). These databases were chosen because they include a wide range of peer-reviewed articles (Mongeon and Paul-Hus 2016 ). The terms “leagile” and “leagility” were also included in the search string since they are based on the notions of agility and leanness; therefore, articles concerning supply chain leagility normally discuss SCA as an antecedent (Humdan et al. 2020 ). The search was performed in December 2022, with no time span restrictions for maximum exposure. After discarding duplicate articles, the titles, abstracts, and keywords of the remaining articles were screened to ensure that they were relevant. Articles that contained information regarding the effects of AM technology adoption on different dimensions of SCA were considered relevant. In cases where it was not possible to ensure the relevance of the articles by screening their titles, abstracts, and keywords, the articles were screened in their entirety instead. Subsequently, irrelevant articles were discarded. Moreover, to ensure data quality, only peer-reviewed articles were selected (Light and Pillemer 1984 ), which were written in English and were mainly published in journals with an AJG (aka ABS) ranking by the Chartered Association of Business Schools ( 2021 ). In the last step, the search results were complemented by a backward search. This was done by examining the references of the resultant articles to identify additional sources that contained relevant information about the subject matter while abiding by the mentioned inclusion criteria (Thomé et al. 2016 ). These steps led to deriving the necessary sample for the review (Table S1 - online supplementary material).

Table 1 presents the details about the search string as well as the article selection procedure. Table 2 presents the journal details and the number of selected articles per journal. Figure 2 depicts the year-wise distribution of the articles.

Distribution of the articles by year

2.3 Data analysis and synthesis

2.3.1 research dimensions.

To ensure that all the selected articles were assessed against the same underlying criteria in the review process (Tranfield et al. 2003 ), this study made use of established research dimensions (aka coding criteria) available in the literature. To code the gathered evidence in the review sample concerning AM features that enhance SCA, the comprehensive list of AM adoption features proposed by Naghshineh and Carvalho ( 2022a ) was used. In some cases where this list did not contain an appropriate AM adoption feature that would properly summarize the text segment under study, new codes were generated. For instance, the text segment “The system downtime can also be reduced by using a temporary fix for broken spare parts” (Boer et al. 2020 ) was coded as “Temporary solutions”. It is worth noting that some text segments were coded more than once because they were indicative of different AM adoption features. The complete list of codes and their definitions is provided in Table 3 .

Since the extant literature falls short of an exclusive definition for SCA that would comprehensively characterize this concept and specify its different dimensions, this study adapted the most commonly used measures of SCA instead. To do this, the proposed SCA measures in studies by Swafford et al. ( 2006 , 2008 ), Whitten et al. ( 2012 ), Blome et al. ( 2013 ), Yang ( 2014 ), and Gligor et al. ( 2015 ) were meticulously analyzed and selected to derive a comprehensive list of SCA dimensions (Table 4 ). According to Gligor et al. ( 2022 ), these studies include the most commonly applied SCA measures in the operations and supply chain management literature today. To validate its comprehensiveness, the derived list was then benchmarked against the twenty-five definitions of SCA compiled in the literature review by Humdan et al. ( 2020 ).

2.3.2 Analysis and synthesis method

The aforementioned research dimensions were used to analyze and synthesize the evidence in the review sample. More specifically, the codes in Table 3 were used to summarize the text segments that contained relevant information regarding features of AM technology adoption, which were subsequently associated with the SCA dimensions in Table 4 based on their contextual relevance. For instance, the text segment “No tooling is needed significantly reducing production ramp-up time and expense” (Holmström et al. 2010 ) was coded as “Tool-less manufacturing”. In this instance, as there is no need to have various production tools in place when using AM technology, the adopting firm can quickly ramp up (adjust) its production volumes to satisfy the erratic customer demand, thereby enhancing SCA. Hence, “Tool-less manufacturing” was associated with “Production volumes” given its contextual relevance inferred from the aforementioned text segment. More illustrative examples can be found in Table S2 (online supplementary material), where these codes and associations are displayed.

Following this structured process helped to reduce the gathered evidence into manageable units for data display, analysis, and synthesis, thus improving the validity of the findings (Miles and HuBerman 1994 ). Moreover, this process was reviewed multiple times to ensure the soundness and rigor of the inferred associations (Tranfield et al. 2003 ). Completing this structured process led to mapping the enhancing effects of different AM adoption features on the identified SCA dimensions. These findings are discussed in the following subsection.

2.4 Findings

Figure 3 represents the derived map that comprehensively illustrates the enhancing effects of the identified AM adoption features on different SCA dimensions. The indicated numbers in the map represent the pieces of evidence that were found in the review sample concerning the AM adoption features that tend to enhance the SCA dimensions under study. More specifically, the numbers at the intersection of AM adoption features and SCA dimensions are derived based on the number of times each identified AM adoption feature was associated with an SCA dimension. Hence, these numbers roughly represent the proportional amount of existing evidence in the literature regarding the subject matter. This type of descriptive analysis is also employed in reviews by Ryan et al. ( 2017 ) and Kunovjanek et al. ( 2020 ), among others, to highlight the relative importance of the findings and to identify the understudied areas (“white space”) that would benefit from further research.

As shown in Fig. 3 , 42 identified features of AM technology adoption enhance 13 different dimensions of SCA. The map indicates that “Mass customization”, “Distributed manufacturing”, and “Design freedom” are the top three features of AM adoption that alone account for 22% of the identified enhancing effects on almost all the SCA dimensions. The next set of features is “Small production runs”, “Tool-less manufacturing”, “On-demand manufacturing”, and “Rapid prototyping”, which together account for almost 20% of the enhancing effects of AM adoption on different SCA dimensions. In the same vein, the third set of identified features is “Customer-centric production”, “Digital file distribution”, “Co-creation/co-design”, “Direct digital manufacturing”, “Hybrid manufacturing model”, “Manufacturing flexibility”, and “Simplified operations” that account for almost 24% of the enhancing effects. In summary, these 14 features account for almost 66% (roughly two-thirds) of the total enhancing effects of AM adoption on different SCA dimensions, while the remaining 28 features only account for 34% (roughly one-third) of the enhancing effects.

Map of the enhancing effects of AM adoption features on SCA dimensions

Based on these observations, the following proposition is put forward:

Proposition 1 : While many features of AM technology adoption tend to enhance SCA, a major share of this enhancing effect is caused by AM-enabled mass customization , distributed manufacturing , design freedom , small production runs , tool-less manufacturing , on-demand manufacturing , rapid prototyping , customer-centric production , digital file distribution , co-creation/co-design , direct digital manufacturing , hybrid manufacturing model , manufacturing flexibility , and simplified operations .

Regarding SCA, “Market responsiveness”, “Product customization”, and “Customer service” are the top three SCA dimensions that alone receive more than 40% of the identified enhancing effects of AM adoption. The next three SCA dimensions are “Delivery capability”, “Delivery reliability”, and “Production volumes” which receive almost 30% of the enhancing effects. While these six SCA dimensions together receive roughly 70% (more than two-thirds) of the enhancing effects, the other seven SCA dimensions only receive the remaining 30% (less than one-third) of the enhancing effects.

Proposition 2 : While a major share of the enhancing effects of AM technology adoption on SCA is due to potential improvements in market responsiveness , product customization , customer service , delivery capability , delivery reliability , and production volumes , the remainder is due to potential improvements in the manufacturing lead time , collaborative relationships , range of products , development cycle time , new product introductions , information sharing , and supply-side changes .

3 Research implications

3.1 theoretical implications.

The contributions of this study are manyfold. Given the scarcity of comprehensive studies at the intersection of Industry 4.0 and SCA (Seyedghorban et al. 2020 ), particularly studies investigating the effects of AM technology adoption on SCA (Naghshineh and Carvalho 2022a ), this study puts forward a holistic map that helps overcome this knowledge shortfall. There have been some studies in the extant literature that examine the effects of AM technology adoption on supply chains. However, to date, no study has comprehensively investigated the ways in which adopting this digital technology enhances SCA. To this end, this study extensively identified the features of AM technology adoption that tend to enhance SCA. Furthermore, this study explicitly identified which dimensions of SCA are enhanced by which features of AM technology adoption. The derived map would allow academics and practitioners to navigate these variables and extrapolate the existing relationships between them. In addition, the identified “white space” in the map presents opportunities for investigating the understudied areas concerning the subject matter.

In their study, Durach et al. ( 2017 ) proposed that “ It is likely that AM will change supply chains in such a way that we see increased supply chain agility in the next ten years.” They mainly attributed this increase in SCA to AM-enabled distributed manufacturing, as well as the ability to adjust production capacity based on demand, allowing the adopting firm to be more responsive to changing market needs. For the most part, their projections are in accord with the findings of this study, since “Distributed manufacturing” and “On-demand manufacturing” are among the most influential AM adoption features that enhance SCA (see Fig. 3 ). To complement their findings, however, this study explicitly identifies the SCA dimensions that are enhanced by these AM adoption features. “Delivery capability” and “Delivery reliability” are largely enhanced by these AM adoption features, allowing the adopting firm to quickly adjust its delivery capacity based on the existing demand and reduce delivery lead time using a distributed manufacturing setting. Subsequently, “Market responsiveness” and “Customer service” are notably improved as well. This extrapolated relationship corroborates the findings of Akmal et al. ( 2022 ), who state that a switchover to AM technology for the on-demand manufacture of problematic parts enhances the delivery performance of the adopting firm, which, in turn, will result in improved customer service and market responsiveness. This is an example of how the derived map allows the extrapolation and understanding of such relationships between different AM adoption features and SCA dimensions.

In their literature reviews, both Verboeket and Krikke ( 2019 ) and Kunovjanek et al. ( 2020 ) note that AM technology increases supply chain responsiveness, but they do not explicitly mention the effects of AM technology adoption on SCA. In these reviews, responsiveness is regarded as a supply chain performance outcome, which is mainly induced by SCA as a dynamic supply chain capability (Blome et al. 2013 ; Aslam et al. 2018 ). Therefore, by employing the dynamic capabilities view as the theoretical lens and thoroughly identifying the AM adoption features that enhance different dimensions of SCA, this study bridges the gap in understanding why AM technology adoption leads to increased supply chain responsiveness and performance.

Given that there are still unexplored areas concerning the enhancing effects of different AM adoption features on SCA dimensions, this study draws on the identified “white space” in the derived map (Fig. 3 ) to propose several thought-provoking questions (see Table 5) that present avenues for future research. This research agenda proposes rather nuanced questions, in the sense that they are formulated based on the identified AM adoption features and their potential enhancing effects on relevant SCA dimensions. By putting forward these questions, this study seeks to stimulate further research aimed at building and testing theory at the intersection of AM technology adoption and SCA, hence generating new knowledge to fill the identified “white space”. It is worth noting that more questions may be formulated by drawing on the “white space” in the derived map, and that this study merely proposes the questions it speculates would benefit from further research, thereby contributing to theory and practice.

3.2 Managerial implications

Using the derived map (Fig. 3 ), some of the important enhancing effects of AM technology adoption on SCA are delineated in this subsection. For brevity and legibility, this subsection is not populated with a multitude of references. Nonetheless, interested readers can cross-check the identified implications against the supporting evidence and sources in Table S2 (online supplementary material).

The findings suggest that some AM adoption features tend to be more pronounced in enhancing certain dimensions of SCA. For instance, distributed manufacturing via AM would enhance the speed of the firm in adjusting its delivery capacity, as well as reducing its delivery lead times, mainly due to the possibility of manufacturing on demand in close proximity to the target market, thus reducing the need for many logistics activities such as warehousing and transportation (Durach et al. 2017 ; Zanoni et al. 2019 ). This would, in turn, enhance the capability of the firm to quickly respond to changing market needs and improve the level of customer service. Design freedom is another pronounced AM feature that enhances almost all the SCA dimensions under study. This is particularly noticeable in the case of product customization since AM allows the adopting firm to swiftly come up with new customized products to satisfy erratic customer demands, therefore increasing market responsiveness (Candi and Beltagui 2019 ; Belhadi et al. 2022 ). This feature reduces the development cycle time of new products. In fact, design freedom and rapid prototyping are the only two AM adoption features identified in the map that considerably reduce the development cycle time.

Another noteworthy feature is small production runs, which provides leeway in adjusting production volumes. This ability is augmented by the tool-less nature of AM technology, which allows the adopting firm to benefit from economies of scope as well as economies of one, especially when deploying a hybrid manufacturing model (Khajavi et al. 2015 ; Weller et al. 2015 ). In more specific terms, since AM does not require various tools or equipment to start production, it empowers the firm to manufacture an unlimited range of customized products in small quantities (or even one-off products) with economic viability, thus overcoming the constraints imposed by economies of scale. This can particularly become synergistic in a hybrid manufacturing setting, where slow-moving products with stochastic demand are assigned to AM, while fast-moving products with rather deterministic demand continue being manufactured via conventional methods (Khajavi et al. 2015 ; Verboeket and Krikke 2019 ). The required AM capacity in this hybrid approach can even be provided by pooling the available AM capacity in the market. This, in turn, will enhance the agility of the firm in adjusting its production volumes. Likewise, in the event of supplier outages, delivery failures, or sudden market shortages, production can be outsourced to AM service providers (Durach et al. 2017 ; Verboeket and Krikke 2019 ), allowing the firm to quickly react to such supply-side changes.

Along the same lines, tool-less manufacturing prompts a fast production setup, reducing the manufacturing lead time in AM settings. Integrating multiple production processes into one process is another AM feature that contributes to reducing the manufacturing lead time. This is further facilitated by the possibility of consolidating many parts into one enhanced functional part through AM (Knofius et al. 2019 ; Zanoni et al. 2019 ). Rapid tooling via AM technology may as well facilitate the production process by providing the opportunity to create necessary production tools (e.g., jigs, fixtures, and molds) on-site, hence contributing to reducing the manufacturing lead time. In the same vein, AM enables the quick provision of temporary solutions/fixes (Boer et al. 2020 ; Friedrich et al. 2022 ), allowing the firm to avoid costly system downtimes that prolong the manufacturing lead time. These features together turn AM into a flexible manufacturing method that grants the adopting firm the agility it needs to produce a wide range of customized products with short lead times.

Furthermore, simplified operations together with fewer raw materials and digital inventory in an AM setting facilitate logistics activities, allowing the firm to quickly adjust its delivery capacity and issue reliable delivery dates to customers. The AM-enabled possibility of postponing production based on an engineer/make-to-order model simplifies production planning since the production phase can begin after customer orders are received and processed (Zanoni et al. 2019 ; Delic and Eyers 2020 ). Just-in-time production can be facilitated using AM, as there will be fewer raw materials and finished goods inventory in the system to handle (Tuck et al. 2007 ; Patil et al. 2022 ). This feature is further enhanced by the ability to directly manufacture the required parts using raw materials and 3D models (i.e., direct digital manufacturing), which are normally kept in the form of digital inventory (vs. finished goods inventory). Additionally, mobile manufacturing can enhance the delivery capability and reliability of the firm. This can be done by equipping transport vehicles with AM machines, which then manufacture the requested parts in transit, thereby following the demand to its point of origin and reducing delivery lead time (Ryan et al. 2017 ; Basu et al. 2022 ). Moreover, in the case of sudden supply-side changes such as delayed deliveries due to import/export issues, the necessary parts can be produced locally/remotely via AM, thus maintaining the on-time delivery performance of the firm.

Given the digital nature of AM, adopting this technology will promote information sharing among supply chain partners. AM adoption gives rise to new business models through which it would be possible to involve the customer in the design and production phases, hence developing collaborative relationships and improving customer service levels (Bogers et al. 2016 ; Naghshineh and Carvalho 2022b ). Another feature that can improve the level of customer service is the provision of legacy parts that no longer exist in the aftermarket. This can be accomplished through a customer-centric production model in which customers take over the production phase provided that they are supplied with the right 3D design data. In addition, customer service levels can be improved by extending the life cycle of products through AM-enabled repair and refurbishment (Boer et al. 2020 ; Patil et al. 2022 ). Altogether, such features of AM technology adoption lower the barriers to entering new markets.

Similar observations can be made by referring to the derived map, where the identified AM adoption features intersect with the SCA dimensions under study. Hence, this map can be of great use to managers and policymakers for strategic decision-making aimed at enhancing different dimensions of SCA via AM technology adoption. Overall, evidence suggests that by enhancing different dimensions of SCA, AM technology adoption prompts various opportunities for the adopting firm to gain a competitive advantage in erratic business environments.

4 Conclusion

Although dispersed pieces of evidence in the extant literature suggest that AM technology adoption tends to enhance SCA, to date, no study employed a holistic approach to investigate this topic. Grounded in the dynamic capabilities view, a systematic literature review was conducted to address this research gap in a rigorous manner. In doing so, this study managed to map the adoption features of AM technology that would augment the capability of the adopting firm to deal with erratic business environments in an agile manner, therefore gaining a competitive advantage. The derived map provides a strategic view for both academics and practitioners in the field who wish to look into the enhancing effects of AM technology adoption on SCA (see Fig. 3 ). More specifically, this map serves to highlight the AM adoption features that enable the adopting firm to enhance the SCA dimensions that it deems necessary. Considering the identified “white space” in the map, this study also proposes several questions to form a research agenda, presenting avenues for future research.

In an attempt to ensure data quality, this study only used peer-reviewed papers published in journals with an AJG (aka ABS) ranking. Therefore, some pieces of evidence in publications without this ranking may have been overlooked. Moreover, as this study drew on the scattered pieces of evidence in different studies to discover what features of AM technology adoption would enhance SCA, its findings are based on a wide range of AM processes and applications in various industries with different supply chain characteristics. While this provides an overall perspective, future research is required for a more nuanced understanding of the subject matter. Therefore, to put the derived map to the test, empirical research is recommended, especially case studies in specific industries and markets with distinct supply chain characteristics, where the effects of certain AM processes and their applications on enhancing the identified SCA dimensions can be examined. To further promote strategy analysis, future research can also analyze the evidence gathered in this review using different qualitative methods (e.g., critical review) to elaborate on how, and possibly to what extent, the identified AM adoption features enhance the SCA dimensions and speculate on the implications of such effects for supply chain management processes. While the focus of this review was on identifying the AM adoption features that enhance different dimensions of SCA, future research is required to identify the barriers that inhibit the enhancing effects of AM technology adoption in this regard. In the same vein, longitudinal research is recommended to examine how and to what extent the enhancing effects of AM technology adoption on different SCA dimensions change as the adoption barriers gradually disappear.

Data Availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Akmal JS, Salmi M, Björkstrand R, Partanen J, Holmström J (2022) Switchover to industrial additive manufacturing: dynamic decision-making for problematic spare parts. Int J Oper Prod Manag 42(13):358–384. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-01-2022-0054

Article Google Scholar

Aslam H, Blome C, Roscoe S, Azhar TM (2018) Dynamic supply chain capabilities: how market sensing, supply chain agility and adaptability affect supply chain ambidexterity. Int J Oper Prod Manag 38(12):2266–2285. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-09-2017-0555

Basu A, Yuvaraj MD M (2022) Improving agility and resilience of automotive spares supply chain: the additive manufacturing enabled truck model. Socio-Econ Plan Sci 85:101401. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2022.101401

Belhadi A, Kamble SS, Venkatesh M, Jabbour CJC, Benkhati I (2022) Building supply chain resilience and efficiency through additive manufacturing: an ambidextrous perspective on the dynamic capability view. Int J Prod Econ 249:108516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2022.108516

Blome C, Schoenherr T, Rexhausen D (2013) Antecedents and enablers of supply chain agility and its effect on performance: a dynamic capabilities perspective. Int J Prod Res 51(4):1295–1318. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207543.2012.728011

Boer J, Lambrechts W, Krikke H (2020) Additive manufacturing in military and humanitarian missions: advantages and challenges in the spare parts supply chain. J Clean Prod 257:120301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120301

Bogers M, Hadar R, Bilberg A (2016) Additive manufacturing for consumer-centric business models: implications for supply chains in consumer goods manufacturing. Technol Forecast Soc Change 102:225–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2015.07.024

Candi M, Beltagui A (2019) Effective use of 3D printing in the innovation process. Technovation 80:63–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2018.05.002

Chartered Association of Business Schools (2021) The academic journal guide 2018. https://charteredabs.org/academic-journal-guide-2021-available-now/ . Accessed 3 August 2021

Delic M, Eyers DR (2020) The effect of additive manufacturing adoption on supply chain flexibility and performance: an empirical analysis from the automotive industry. Int J Prod Econ 228:107689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107689

Dubey R, Altay N, Gunasekaran A, Blome C, Papadopoulos T, Childe SJ (2018) Supply chain agility, adaptability and alignment: empirical evidence from the Indian auto components industry. Int J Oper Prod Manag 38(1):129–148. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-04-2016-0173

Durach CF, Kurpjuweit S, Wagner SM (2017) The impact of additive manufacturing on supply chains. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 47(10):954–971. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-11-2016-0332

Frankel R, Naslund D, Bolumole Y (2005) The white space of logistics research: a look at the role of methods usage. J Bus Logist 26(2):185–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2158-1592.2005.tb00211.x

Friedrich A, Lange A, Elbert R (2022) Supply chain design for industrial additive manufacturing. Int J Oper Prod Manag 42(11):1678–1710. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-12-2021-0802

Gligor DM, Esmark CL, Holcomb MC (2015) Performance outcomes of supply chain agility: when should you be agile? J Oper Manag 33:71–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2014.10.008

Gligor DM, Stank TP, Gligor N, Ogden JA, Nowicki DR, Farris T, Idug Y, Rana R, Porchia J, Kiran P (2022) Examining the rigor of SCM research: the case of supply chain agility. Supply Chain Manag J (ahead-of-print).

Holmström J, Partanen J, Tuomi J, Walter M (2010) Rapid manufacturing in the spare parts supply chain: alternative approaches to capacity deployment. J Manuf Technol Manag 21:687–697. https://doi.org/10.1108/17410381011063996

Humdan E, Shi Y, Behnia M, Najmaei A (2020) Supply chain agility: a systematic review of definitions, enablers and performance implications. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 50(2):287–312. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-06-2019-0192

ISO/ASTM 52900 (2021) Additive manufacturing — general principles —fundamentals and vocabulary. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

Google Scholar

Khajavi SH, Partanen J, Holmström J, Tuomi J (2015) Risk reduction in new product launch: a hybrid approach combining direct digital and tool-based manufacturing. Comput Ind 74:29–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2015.08.008

Khan MR, Manzoor A (2021) Application and impact of new technologies in the supply chain management during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic literature review. Int J Econ Bus Admin 9(2):277–292

Knofius N, van der Heijden MC, Zijm WH (2019) Consolidating spare parts for asset maintenance with additive manufacturing. Int J Prod Econ 208:269–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2018.11.007

Kunovjanek M, Wankmüller C (2020) An analysis of the global additive manufacturing response to the COVID-19 pandemic. J Manuf Technol Manag 32(9):75–100. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-07-2020-0263

Kunovjanek M, Knofius N, Reiner G (2020) Additive manufacturing and supply chains–a systematic review. Prod Plan Control 33(13):1231–1251. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2020.1857874

Light RJ, Pillemer DB (1984) Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Harvard University Press

Meng R, Yang Z, Sun J (2022), December Digital IT Innovation to Improve Supply Chain Resilience: A Systematic Literature Review. In 2022 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management (IEEM) (0929–0933). IEEE

Miles MB, HuBerman AM (1994) Qualitative data analysis: an expanded sourcebook. Sage

Mongeon P, Paul-Hus A (2016) The journal coverage of web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis. Scientometrics 106(1):213–228. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-015-1765-5

Naghshineh B, Carvalho H (2022a) The implications of additive manufacturing technology adoption for supply chain resilience: a systematic search and review. Int J Prod Econ 247:108387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2021.108387

Naghshineh B, Carvalho H (2022b) Exploring the interrelations between additive manufacturing adoption barriers and supply chain vulnerabilities: the case of an original equipment manufacturer. J Manuf Technol Manag 33(8):1473–1489. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-04-2022-0148

Naghshineh B, Fragoso M, Carvalho H (2023) Rethinking Additive Manufacturing for spare parts Supply Chain Management. Res Technol Manag 66(4):38–47. https://doi.org/10.1080/08956308.2023.2207970

Patil H, Niranjan S, Narayanamurthy G, Narayanan A (2022) Investigating contingent adoption of additive manufacturing in supply chains. Int J Oper Prod Manag 43(3):489–519. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-05-2022-0286

Ryan MJ, Eyers DR, Potter AT, Purvis L, Gosling J (2017) 3D printing the future: scenarios for supply chains reviewed. Int J Phys Distrib Logist Manag 47(10):992–1014. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPDLM-12-2016-0359

Seyedghorban Z, Tahernejad H, Meriton R, Graham G (2020) Supply chain digitalization: past, present and future. Prod Plan Control 31(2–3):96–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2019.1631461

Shashi CP, Cerchione R, Ertz M (2020) Agile supply chain management: where did it come from and where will it go in the era of digital transformation? Ind Mark Manag 90:324–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.07.011

Swafford PM, Ghosh S, Murthy N (2006) The antecedents of supply chain agility of a firm: scale development and model testing. J Oper Manag 24(2):170–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.05.002

Swafford PM, Ghosh S, Murthy N (2008) Achieving supply chain agility through IT integration and flexibility. Int J Prod Econ 116(2):288–297. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2008.09.002

Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A (1997) Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strateg Manag J 18(7): 509–533. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097 -0266 (199708)18:7 < 509::AID-SMJ882 > 3.0.CO;2-Z

Thomé AMT, Scavarda LF, Scavarda AJ (2016) Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Prod Plan Control 27(5):408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2015.1129464

Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P (2003) Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. Br J Manag 14(3):207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375

Tuck C, Hague R, Burns N (2007) Rapid manufacturing: impact on supply chain methodologies and practice. Int J Serv Oper Manag 3(1):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJSOM.2007.011459

Verboeket V, Krikke H (2019) The disruptive impact of additive manufacturing on supply chains: a literature study, conceptual framework and research agenda. Comput Ind 111:91–107. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.07.003

Waller MA, Fawcett SE (2014) Click here to print a maker movement supply chain: how invention and entrepreneurship will disrupt supply chain design. J Bus Logist 35:99–102. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12045

Weller C, Kleer R, Piller FT (2015) Economic implications of 3D printing: market structure models in light of additive manufacturing revisited. Int J Prod Econ 164:43–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2015.02.020

Wernerfelt B (1984) A resource-based view of the firm. Strateg Manag J 5(2):171–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.4250050207

Whitten GD, Green KW, Zelbst PJ (2012) Triple-A supply chain performance. Int J Oper Prod Manag 32(1):28–48. https://doi.org/10.1108/01443571211195727

Yang J (2014) Supply chain agility: securing performance for Chinese manufacturers. Int J Prod Econ 150:104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.12.018

Zanoni S, Ashourpour M, Bacchetti A, Zanardini M, Perona M (2019) Supply chain implications of additive manufacturing: a holistic synopsis through a collection of case studies. Int J Adv Manuf Technol 102:3325–3340. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00170-019-03430-w

Download references

Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on). The author acknowledges the financial support by the Doctoral Grant [PRT/BD/152828/2021] financed by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT–MCTES) under the MIT Portugal Program.

Open access funding provided by FCT|FCCN (b-on).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

UNIDEMI, Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, NOVA School of Science and Technology, NOVA University Lisbon, Caparica, 2829-516, Portugal

Bardia Naghshineh

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bardia Naghshineh .

Additional information

Communicated by Stefan Lier.

Communicated by Miguel Martin.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary material 2, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Naghshineh, B. Mapping the enhancing effects of additive manufacturing technology adoption on supply chain agility. Manag Rev Q (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00376-y

Download citation

Received : 20 March 2023

Accepted : 22 September 2023

Published : 23 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11301-023-00376-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Additive manufacturing
3D printing
Digital technology adoption
Supply chain agility
Systematic literature review
Research agenda
Find a journal
Publish with us
Track your research

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Cardiovascular health and cancer risk associated with plant based diets: An umbrella review

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft

Affiliations Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, Alma Mater Studiorum–University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy, Interdisciplinary Research Center for Health Science, Sant’Anna School of Advanced Studies, Pisa, Tuscany, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Science, Alma Mater Studiorum–University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Stanford Prevention Research Center, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, United States of America

Affiliation Department of Translational Medicine, University of Eastern Piedmont, (UNIUPO), Novara, Italy

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Writing – review & editing

Roles Conceptualization, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation IRCCS Istituto delle Scienze Neurologiche di Bologna, Programma Neurochirurgia Ipofisi—Pituitary Unit, Bologna, Italy

Angelo Capodici,
Gabriele Mocciaro,
Davide Gori,
Matthew J. Landry,
Alice Masini,
Francesco Sanmarchi,
Matteo Fiore,
Angela Andrea Coa,
Gisele Castagna,

Published: May 15, 2024
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711
Reader Comments

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and cancer are the two main leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Suboptimal diet, poor in vegetables, fruits, legumes and whole grain, and rich in processed and red meat, refined grains, and added sugars, is a primary modifiable risk factor. Based on health, economic and ethical concerns, plant-based diets have progressively widespread worldwide.

This umbrella review aims at assessing the impact of animal-free and animal-products-free diets (A/APFDs) on the risk factors associated with the development of cardiometabolic diseases, cancer and their related mortalities.

Data sources

PubMed and Scopus were searched for reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses published from 1st January 2000 to 31st June 2023, written in English and involving human subjects of all ages. Primary studies and reviews/meta-analyses based on interventional trials which used A/APFDs as a therapy for people with metabolic diseases were excluded.

Data extraction

The umbrella review approach was applied for data extraction and analysis. The revised AMSTAR-R 11-item tool was applied to assess the quality of reviews/meta-analyses.

Overall, vegetarian and vegan diets are significantly associated with better lipid profile, glycemic control, body weight/BMI, inflammation, and lower risk of ischemic heart disease and cancer. Vegetarian diet is also associated with lower mortality from CVDs. On the other hand, no difference in the risk of developing gestational diabetes and hypertension were reported in pregnant women following vegetarian diets. Study quality was average. A key limitation is represented by the high heterogeneity of the study population in terms of sample size, demography, geographical origin, dietary patterns, and other lifestyle confounders.

Conclusions

Plant-based diets appear beneficial in reducing cardiometabolic risk factors, as well as CVDs, cancer risk and mortality. However, caution should be paid before broadly suggesting the adoption of A/AFPDs since the strength-of-evidence of study results is significantly limited by the large study heterogeneity alongside the potential risks associated with potentially restrictive regimens.

Citation: Capodici A, Mocciaro G, Gori D, Landry MJ, Masini A, Sanmarchi F, et al. (2024) Cardiovascular health and cancer risk associated with plant based diets: An umbrella review. PLoS ONE 19(5): e0300711. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711

Editor: Melissa Orlandin Premaor, Federal University of Minas Gerais: Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, BRAZIL

Received: January 8, 2024; Accepted: March 4, 2024; Published: May 15, 2024

Copyright: © 2024 Capodici et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and cancer currently represent the leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Studies performed on large cohorts worldwide have identified several modifiable and non-modifiable risk factors. Among them, robust evidence supports diet as a major modifiable risk factor [ 1 ].

A suboptimal diet, marked by insufficient consumption of fruits, vegetables, legumes, and whole grains, coupled with an excessive intake of meat (particularly red and processed), salt, refined grains and sugar, has been shown to notably elevate both mortality rates and disability-adjusted life years. Over time, these dietary choices have led to a concerning increase in health-related issues [ 1 , 2 ].

Additionally, the reduction of products of animal origin in favor of vegetarian ones has been suggested to reduce CVD and cancer risk [ 3 , 4 ]. Several major professional and scientific organizations encourage the adoption of vegetarian and vegan diets for the prevention and treatment of a range of chronic metabolic diseases such as atherosclerosis, type 2 diabetes, hypertension and obesity [ 5 , 6 ]. Ethical, environmental, and socio-economic concerns have contributed to the widespread growth of plant-based diets, particularly vegetarian and vegan options [ 7 – 9 ]. 2014 cross-national governmental survey estimated that approximately 75 million people around the globe deliberately followed a vegetarian diet, while an additional 1,45 million were obliged to because of socio-economic factors [ 10 , 11 ].

At the same time, study heterogeneity in terms of plant-based dietary regimens (from limitation of certain types to the total exclusion of animal products), their association with other lifestyle factors, patient demographic and geographical features, associated diseases, as well as study design and duration, significantly limit the assessment of the real benefits associated with animal-free and animal-products-free diets (A/APFDs). Finally, an increasing number of studies have highlighted the potential threatening consequences of chronic vitamin and mineral deficiencies induced by these diets (e.g., megaloblastic anemia due to vitamin B12 deficiency), especially more restrictive ones and in critical periods of life, like pregnancy and early childhood [ 5 ].

Based on these premises, our umbrella review aims at assessing the impact of animal-free and animal-products-free diets (A/APFDs) on the risk factors associated with the development of cardiometabolic diseases, cancer and their related mortalities in both the adult and the pediatric population, as well as pregnant women.

Search strategy

PubMed ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ ) and Scopus ( https://www.scopus.com/search/form.uri?display=basic#basic ) databases were searched for reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses published from 1st January 2000 to 31st June 2023. We considered only articles written in English, involving human subjects, with an available abstract, and answering to the following PICO question: P (population): people of all ages; I (intervention) and C (comparison): people adopting A/APFDs vs. omnivores; O (outcome): impact of A/APFD on health parameters associated with CVDs, metabolic disorders or cancer.

Articles not specifying the type of A/APFD regimen were excluded. If not detailed, the A/APFDs adopted by study participants was defined as “mixed diet”. Vegetarian diets limiting but not completely excluding certain types of meat/fish (i.e. pesco- or pollo-vegetarian diet) were excluded. Studies focusing on subjects with specific nutritional needs (i.e., athletes or military personnel) -except pregnant women-, or with known underlying chronic diseases (i.e., chronic kidney disease), as well as articles focusing on conditions/health parameters related to disorders different from CVDs or cancer, and, finally, reviews/meta-analyses including interventional studies assessing A/APFDs comparing it with pharmacological interventions were excluded.

Ad hoc literature search strings, made of a broad selection of terms related to A/APFDs, including PubMed MeSH-terms, free-text words and their combinations, combined by proper Boolean operators, were created to search PubMed database: ((vegetari* OR vegan OR Diet , Vegetarian[MH] OR fruitar* OR veganism OR raw-food* OR lacto-veget* OR ovo-vege* OR semi-veget* OR plant-based diet* OR vegetable-based diet* OR fruit-based diet* OR root-based diet OR juice-based diet OR non-meat eate* OR non-meat diet*) AND ((review[Publication Type]) OR (meta-analysis[Publication Type]))) AND (("2000/01/01"[Date—Publication] : "2023/06/31"[Date—Publication])) and Scopus database: ALL(vegetari* OR vegan OR Diet , Vegetarian OR fruitar* OR veganism OR raw-food* OR lacto-veget* OR ovo-vege* OR semi-veget* OR plant-based diet* OR vegetable-based diet* OR fruit-based diet* OR root-based diet OR juice-based diet OR non-meat eate* OR non-meat diet) AND SUBJAREA(MEDI OR NURS OR VETE OR DENT OR HEAL OR MULT) PUBYEAR > 1999 AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE , "re"))

Research design and study classification

An umbrella review approach [ 12 ] was applied to systematically assess the effect of A/APFDs on risk factors related to CVDs, metabolic disorders and cancer as derived from literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses ( Table 1 ).

PPT PowerPoint slide
PNG larger image
TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711.t001

Study selection

The list of articles identified by literature search was split into 5 equivalent parts, each assigned to a couple of readers (AC, DG, CW, ML, AM, FS, MF, AAC, GC and FG), who independently and blindly read the title and then the abstract of each article to define its pertinence. Papers included in the umbrella review had to focus on one/some of the following A/APFDs: vegans, lacto-vegetarians, ovo-vegetarians, lacto-ovo-vegetarians. No restriction was applied for age, gender, ethnicity, geographical origin, nor socio economic status. Primary studies, reviews/meta-analyses not written in English, or focusing on non-previously mentioned dietary regimens (including the Mediterranean diet) were excluded. Abstract meetings, editorials, letters to the editor, and study protocols were also excluded. To reduce study heterogeneity, at least in terms of dietary regimens, we excluded studies based on vegetarian regimens limiting but not avoiding fish or poultry, and prospective trials directly comparing A/AFPDs to pharmacological interventions.

In case of discordance between readers, we resorted to discussion amongst the authors to resolve it, based on the article’s abstract or, if not decisive, the full text. The study selection process is summarized in Fig 1 .

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711.g001

This review was registered on PROSPERO (Record ID: 372913 https://www.crd.york.ac.uk /prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=372913 ).

Quality literature analysis

Three raters (AC, DG, FS) independently and blindly assessed the quality of the systematic reviews and meta-analyses using the revised AMSTAR-R 11-item tool, developed by the PEROSH group [ 13 ]. In case of disagreement, the score of each item and the final decision were discussed among the three raters.

Data extraction and reporting

Ten investigators (AC, DG, GM, ML, AM, FS, MF, AAC, GC, FG) independently extracted data from eligible articles. Disagreements in data extraction were resolved by consensus. Using a predefined protocol and a Microsoft Excel sheet, the following data were extracted: first author’s affiliation country; type of review; type of diet; target population; number of aggregated participants; total cholesterol; HDL-cholesterol; LDL-cholesterol; triglycerides; apolipoprotein B; C-Reactive Protein (CRP); Body Mass Index (BMI); body weight; fasting glucose; glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c); systolic blood pressure; diastolic blood pressure; cardiac events (type; risk); cardiovascular diseases (type; risk); gestational diabetes; gestational hypertension; cancer (type; risk); death due to CVDs/cancer (risk). Data were reported as mean difference (MD), weighted mean difference (WMD), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95%CI, while the estimated risk could be reported as relative risk (RR), odds ratio (OR), or hazard ratio (HR), according to the data reported by the study authors. Articles assessing the risk of gestational diabetes and hypertension, as well as risk of low birth weight, and their determinants were examined separately.

Results from studies focusing on both vegetarian and vegan diets were analyzed and reported separately if authors had stratified the results according to the type of diet. On the contrary, if data from vegan and vegetarian subjects were mixed, we arbitrarily considered all of them as “vegetarian”.

Group 1: Cardiovascular endpoints and risk factors

I. total cholesterol (tc)..

Eight studies examined the levels of total serum cholesterol (TC) in vegetarians. Two focused on the general population and included 5,561 [ 14 ] and 576 [ 15 ] respectively, and, based on data meta-analysis, found a significant reduction in TC among vegetarians and people who assumed plant-based proteins (MD: -1.56 mmol/L; 95%CI: −1.73, −1.39; and -0.11 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.22, −0.01, respectively).

Data were confirmed by Wang et al. (N = 832 total; Ovolacto/lacto-vegetarians: 291) [ 16 ], showing a greater dietary effect in subjects with a BMI ranging from 18.5 to 25 kg/m 2 (mean TC reduction: −0.94 mmol/L; 95%CI: −1.33, −0.55), and from 25 to 30 kg/m 2 (−0.58 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.89, −0.27), than in those with a BMI >30 kg/m 2 (−0.16 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.30, −0.01), and by Xu et al. (N = 783) [ 17 ], reporting lower TC in overweight and obese people (WMD: −0.37 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.52, −0.22) adopting a vegetarian diet.

Another systematic review by Elliott et al., including 27 randomized controlled trials on plant based vs. normal western diets [ 18 ], found lower TC levels in vegetarians. These results were in line with other two descriptive reviews, the first including 2,890 overweight/obese adults [ 19 ], the second 8,969 vegetarian children aged 0–18 years [ 20 ]. Furthermore, a meta-analysis by Liang et al. described significantly lower TC (from -0.36 to -0.24 mmol/L) in people adopting plant based diets vs. people adopting western habitual diets [ 21 ].

Moreover, the review and meta-analysis by Dinu et al. [ 14 ], based on 19 studies for a total of 1,272 adults, reported significantly lower levels of TC among vegans than in omnivores (WMD: −1.72 mmol/L; 95%CI: −1.93, −1.51).

II. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C).

Eight reviews focused on the effects of vegetarian diet on serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) levels. Six [ 15 , 17 , 18 , 21 – 23 ] found no significant difference between vegetarians and omnivores, when considering normal weight and overweight/obese people. On the contrary, the study by Dinu et al. [ 14 ], based on 51 studies, for a total of 6,194 vegetarian adults, reported a WMD −0.15 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.19, −0.11). Liang et al. [ 21 ] analyzed 4 studies and reported a pooled estimated MD of −0.10 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.14, −0.05; p<0.001) in vegetarian diet adopters vs. western diets adopters. Finally, Zhang et al. [ 22 ] did not find any statistically significant differences in HDL-C levels when assessing vegetarian diets compared to non-vegetarians; on the same note Dinu et al. [ 14 ], analyzing data from 15 studies, for a total of 1,175 adults, found no significant differences in HDL-C levels between vegans and people following other dietary regimens.

III. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C).

Ten reviews summarized the effect of vegetarian diets on serum levels of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Seven [ 14 – 18 , 21 , 23 ] found significantly lower LDL-C levels associated with vegetarian diet, both in the general population and in diabetic patients. In particular, Elliot et al. [ 18 ], analyzing 43 observational and interventional studies, described lower LDL-C in people adopting plant based diets; a significant difference was reported by the study of Liang et al. [ 21 ] based on 68 studies (MD: -0.29 to -0.17), and similar to data by Lamberg et al. [ 15 ], based on 13 RCTs including for a total of 576 participants (MD: -0.14 mmol/L; 95%CI: -0.25, -0.02). The impact of vegetarian diet appeared even greater in overweight or obese people, according to the analysis by Xu et al. [ 17 ], based on 7 RCTs (N = 783; MD: -0.31 mmol/L; 95%CI: -0.46, -0.16). Two reviews [ 19 , 20 ] reported similar results in overweight/obese patients and children aged 0–18 years, but no meta-analyses were conducted. Wang et al. [ 16 ] reported a MD of −0.34 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.57, −0.11; p<0.001) in the general adult population. Ferdowsian et al. [ 23 ] reported an overall reduction of LDL-C associated with vegetarian diet, but no synthesis analyses were performed. Dinu et al. [ 14 ] analyzed 46 studies encompassing 5,583 vegetarians and found a WMD of -1.18 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.34, -1.01). Finally, Viguiliouk et al. [ 24 ] reported a MD of −0.12 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.20, −0.04) in 6 trials involving 602 diabetic patients.

Four reviews identified a significant reduction in LDL-C in vegans as compared to omnivores [ 14 , 19 , 23 , 25 ]. Benatar et al. [ 25 ] analyzed 31 studies, for a total of 3,355 healthy vegan adults and 53,393 non-vegan controls and found MD of -0.49 mmol/L (95%CI: -0.62, -0.36; p<0.0001). Ferdowsian et al. [ 23 ] reported a reduction of LDL-C in healthy vegans, and Ivanova et al. [ 19 ] in overweight patients, but no meta-analysis was performed. Finally, Dinu et al. [ 14 ] analyzed 13 studies, for a total of 728 healthy vegan adults, and found a significant LDL-C reduction (WMD: −1.27 mmol/L; 95%CI: −1.66, −0.88).

IV. Triglycerides (TG).

Seven systematic reviews [ 14 , 16 – 18 , 20 , 23 , 26 ] analyzed serum triglycerides (TG) in vegetarians vs. omnivores. Specifically, Wang et al. [ 16 ] described no differences between the two, with a pooled estimated effect of 0.04 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.05, 0.13; p = 0.4). Zhang et al. [ 26 ] analyzing 12 studies for a total of 1,300 subjects, found a MD of −1.28 mmol/L (95%CI; −2.14, −0.42). Schürmann et al. and Ferdowsian et al. [ 20 , 23 ] reported lower TG in vegetarians in both children and adults but did not perform data meta-analysis. Dinu et al. [ 14 ] analyzed 55 studies including 4,008 vegetarians and found a WMD of −0.63 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.97, −0.30; p = 0.02). Conversely, in the review by Elliott et al. [ 18 ] no differences were reported in triglycerides. Xu et al. [ 17 ] reported a significant increase of TG (WMD: 0.29 mmol/L; 95%CI: 0.11, 0.47) in vegetarians as compared to meat eaters.

The effect of vegan diet on TG remains debated as one review [ 23 ] reported significative changes in TGs (-0.14 mmol/L, CI -0.24 to -0.05), while another [ 14 ] did not find any differences between vegans and omnivores since, after having analyzed 13 studies for 483 vegans, they reported a WMD of -0.52 mmol/L (95%CI: -1.13; 0.09).

V. C-reactive protein (CRP).

Three studies reported lower C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in normal weight, overweight and obese vegetarians as compared to non-vegetarians. Craddock et al. and Menzel et al. reported a WMD of -0.61 mg/L (95%CI: -0.91, -0.32; p = 0.0001) [ 27 ]; -0.25 mg/L (95%CI: -0.49, 0; p = 0.05) [ 28 ], respectively.

Data derived from the analysis by Menzel et al. [ 28 ] in vegan subjects were in line with previously mentioned studies performed in vegetarians (WMD: -0.54 mg/L; 95%CI: -0.79, -0.28; p<0.0001).

Two reviews [ 29 , 30 ] focused on the effects of mixed vegetarian diets on CRP levels. The first [ 29 ] included 2,689 obese patients and found a WMD of -0.55 mg/L (95%CI: -0.78, -0.32; I 2 = 94.4%), while the other [ 30 ], based on 2,398 normal weight subjects found no significant differences between vegetarians and omnivores in the primary analysis; alas, when considering a minimum duration of two years vegetarianism they described lower CRP levels vs. omnivores (Hedges’ g = -0.29; 95%CI: -0.59, 0.01).

VI. Plant-based diets and lipids.

Three studies [ 23 , 26 , 31 ] assessed the lipid profile in people following plant-based diets (without differentiating among diet subtypes) in comparison with omnivores. All of them found significantly lower levels of TC, HDL-C and LDL-C in subjects following plant-based diets. Specifically, Yokoyama et al. [ 31 ] reported a WMD of −1.62 mmol/L (95%CI: −1.92, −1.32; p< 0.001; I 2 = 81.4) for TC, −1.27 mmol/L (95%CI: −1.55, −0.99; p< 0.001; I 2 = 83.3) for LDL-C, −0.2 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.26, −0.14; p< 0.001; I 2 = 49.7) for HDL-C, and −0.36 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.78, 0.06; p = 0.092; I 2 = 83.0) for TG when considering observational studies, and of −0.69 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.99, −0.4; p<0.001; I 2 = 54.8) for TC, −0.69 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.98, −0.37; p<0.001; I 2 = 79.2) for LDL-C, −0.19 mmol/L (95%CI: −0.24, −0.14; p<0.001; I 2 = 8.5) for HDL-C, and a non-statistically significant increase of TG based on prospective cohort studies. Additionally, Zhang et al. [ 26 ] in their meta-analysis, including 1,300 subjects, found a SMD of -1.28 mmol/L in TG (95% CI -2.14 to -0.42).

Finally, Picasso et al. [ 32 ] did not find any differences in triglycerides for mixed vegetarian diets (MD: 0.04 mmol/L; 95%CI: -0.09, 0.28), but did find statistically significant differences in HDL-C (MD: -0.05 mmol/L; 95%CI: -0.07, -0.03).

VII. Blood pressure.

A . Systolic blood pressure (SBP) . Various studies found significantly lower mean levels of systolic blood pressure (SBP) levels in vegetarians compared to the general population [ 33 – 36 ]. Specifically, Gibbs et al. [ 33 ] reported a SMD of -5.47 mmHg (95%CI: -7.60, -3.34; p<0.00001) in ovo-lacto-vegetarians, as did Lee et al. [ 34 ] reporting a SMD of -1.75 mmHg (95%CI: -5.38, 1.88; p = 0.05); furthermore, they reported a SBP decreased by -2.66 mmHg (95%CI: -3.76, -1.55), in people adopting generic vegetarian diets. Moreover, Garbett et al. [ 35 ] reported a 33% lower prevalence of hypertension in vegetarians vs. nonvegetarians. On the contrary, Schwingshackl et al. [ 36 ], analyzing data from 67 clinical trials overall including 17,230 pre-hypertensive and hypertensive adult patients with a BMI between 23.6 and 45.4 kg/m 2 , followed for 3 to 48 months, did not find any significant reductions in SBP associated with vegetarian diet.

Four reviews investigated the differences in SBP between vegans and non-vegans. Benatar et al. and Lee et al. [ 25 , 34 ] reported significantly lower mean SBP levels in vegans vs. omnivores (MD: -2.56 mmHg; 95%CI: -4.66, -0.45; and WMD: -3.12 mmHg; 95%CI: -4.54, -1.70; p<0.001, respectively). On the other hand, Gibbs et al. [-1.30 mmHg (95%CI: -3.90,1.29)] and Lopez et al. (-1.33 mmHg; 95%CI: −3.50, 0.84; P = 0.230) [ 33 , 37 ] did not find any significant difference in mean SBP levels between vegans and omnivores.

Both reviews [ 32 , 38 ] focusing on SBP in mixed-plant-based dietary patterns found significantly lower levels in vegetarians than in omnivores. The meta-analysis by Picasso et al. [ 32 ], based on 4 RCTs did not find any differences, alas, analyzing 42 cross sectional studies, they described a MD of -4.18 mmHg (95%CI -5.57, -2.80; p<0.00001), in agreement with Yokoyama et al. [ 38 ], who reported a MD of -4.8 mmHg (95%CI: -6.6, -3.1; p<0.001; I 2 = 0) according to the 7 controlled trials, 6 of which being randomized (311 participants), included in the analysis, and of -6.9 mmHg (95%CI: -9.1, -4.7; p<0.001; I 2 = 91.4) based on the other 32 observational studies (21,604 participants).

B . Diastolic blood pressure (DBP) . Garbett et al. [ 35 ] reported reduced mean diastolic blood pressure (DBP) values in vegetarians vs. omnivores, confirmed by the analysis of Gibbs et al. [ 33 ] (WMD: –2.49 mmHg; 95%CI: –4.17, –0.80; p = 0.004; I 2 = 0%) in ovo-lacto-vegetarians, by Lee et al. [ 34 ] [WMD: -1.69 mmHg (95%CI: -2.97, -0.41; p<0.001)] who included 15 randomized controlled trials (N = 856) performed in vegetarians; and by Yokoyama et al. [ 38 ], who highlighted a MD -2.2 mmHg (95%CI: -3.5, -1.0; p<0.001; I 2 = 0%) and -4.7 mmHg (95%CI: -6.3, -3.1; p<0.001; I 2 = 92.6%) according to data from 7 controlled trials (N = 311) and 32 observational studies (N = 21,604), respectively. Conversely, Schwingshackl et al. [ 36 ] did not find significant differences between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.

Three reviews [ 25 , 34 , 37 ] examined the impact of vegan vs. non-vegan diet on DBP and described statistically significant reductions. Benatar et al. described reduction of DBP, corresponding to a MD of -1.33 mmHg (95%CI: -2.67, -0.02) [ 25 ]. Lee et al. described a reduction in DBP of a WMD of -1.92 mmHg (95%CI: -3.18, -0.66; p<0.001) [ 34 ]. Finally, Lopez et al. [ 37 ] described the same reduction amounting to WMD: -4.10 mmHg (95%CI: -8.14, -0.06).

Four studies agreed upon the lower mean DBP levels in subjects following mixed vegetarian diets as compared to omnivores [ 32 – 34 , 38 ], quantified as MD -3.03 mmHg (95%CI: -4.93, 1.13; p = 0.002) by Picasso et al. [ 32 ], and −2.2 mmHg (95%CI: −3.5, −1.0; p<0.001) and −4.7 mmHg (95%CI: −6.3, −3.1; p <0.001) by the analysis performed on clinical trials and observational studies, respectively, by Yokoyama et al. [ 38 ].

VIII. Body weight and body mass index (BMI).

Berkow et al. [ 39 ] identified 40 observational studies comparing weight status of vegetarians vs. non-vegetarians: 29 reported that weight/BMI of vegetarians of both genders, different ethnicities (i.e., African Americans, Nigerians, Caucasians and Asians), and from widely separated geographic areas, was significantly lower than that of non-vegetarians, while the other 11 did not find significant differences between the two groups. In female vegetarians, weight was 2.9 to 10.6 kg (6% to 17%) and BMI 2.7% to 15.0% lower than female non-vegetarians, while the weight of male vegetarians was 4.6 to 12.6 kg (8% to 17%) lower and the BMI 4.6% to 16.3% lower than that of male non-vegetarians. The review by Schürmann et al. [ 20 ], focusing on 8,969 children aged 0–18 years old found similar body weight in both vegetarian and vegan children as compared to omnivore ones. Dinu et al. [ 14 ] analyzed data from 71 studies (including 57,724 vegetarians and 199,230 omnivores) and identified a WMD BMI of -1.49 kg/m 2 (95%CI: -1,72, -1,25; p<0.0001) in vegetarians when compared to omnivores.

Barnard et al. [ 40 ] found a significant reduction in weight in pure ovolactovegetarians (−2.9 kg; 95% CI −4.1 to −1.6; P<0.0001), compared to non-vegetarians from control groups; furthermore, they found in vegans the mean effect was of -3.2 kg (95% CI: -4.0;-2.4, P: <0.0001); overall they included 490 subjects in their analysis, excluding subjects who did not complete the trials.

Benatar et al. [ 25 ]–including 12,619 vegans and 179,630 omnivores from 40 observation studies–and Dinu et al. [ 14 ]–based on 19 cross sectional studies, for a total of 8,376 vegans and 123,292 omnivores–reported the same exact result, with a mean lower BMI in vegans vs omnivores, equal to -1.72 kg/m 2 (95%CI: -2.30, -1.16) and -1.72 kg/m 2 (95%CI: -2.21,-1.22; p<0.0001), respectively. The meta-analysis by Long et al. [ 41 ], performed on 27 studies, reported a MD of -0.70 kg/m 2 (95%CI: -1.38, -0.01) for BMI in vegans vs. omnivores. A systematic review and meta-analysis by Agnoli et al. [ 42 ] found mean BMI to be lower in subjects adhering to mixed vegetarian diets as compared to omnivores. Additionally, Tran et al. [ 43 ] described weight reductions in clinically healthy patients, as well as in people who underwent vegetarian diets as a prescription, but no meta-analysis was performed.

Finally, Huang et al. [ 44 ] found significant differences in both vegans and vegetarians, who were found to have lost weight after having adopted the diet as a consequence of being assigned to the intervention group in their randomized studies. For vegetarians the WMD was -2.02 kg (95%CI: -2.80 to -1.23), when compared to mixed diets, and for vegans the WMD was -2.52 kg (95%CI: -3.02 to -1.98), when compared to vegetarians.

IX. Glucose metabolism.

Viguiliouk et al. [ 24 ] found a significant reduction in HbA1c (MD: −0.29%; 95%CI: −0.45, −0.12) and fasting glucose (MD: −0.56 mmol/L; 95%CI: −0.99, −0.13) in vegetarians vs. non-vegetarians.

The meta-analysis by Dinu et al. [ 14 ], reported for vegetarians (2256) vs omnivores (2192) WMD: -0.28 mmol/L (95%CI: -0.33, -0.23) in fasting blood glucose.

These findings were confirmed by Picasso et al. [ 32 ] who found a MD of -0.26 mmol/L (95% CI: -0.35, -0.17) in fasting glucose in mixed-vegetarian diets as compared to omnivores.

A meta-analysis by Long et al. [ 41 ], based of 27 cross sectional studies, showed a MD for homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance -measured as HOMA-IR, a unitless measure ideally less than one- of -0.75 (95%CI: -1.08, -0.42), fasting plasma glucose in vegetarians who adhered also to an exercise intervention as compared to omnivores.

Lee & Park [ 45 ] reported a significantly lower diabetes risk (OR 0.73; 95%CI: 0.61, 0.87; p<0.001) in vegetarians vs. non-vegetarians, being the association stronger in studies conducted in the Western Pacific region and Europe/North America than in those from Southeast Asia.

Regarding vegans, the review by Benatar et al. [ 25 ] determined a mean reduction of 0.23 mmol/L (95%CI: -0.35, -0.10) of fasting blood glucose in vegans (N = 12,619) as compared to omnivores (N = 179,630). The finding was in line with Dinu et al. [ 14 ], who reported a WMD of -0.35 mmol/L (95%CI: -0.69, -0.02; p = 0.04) of fasting blood glucose in vegans (n = 83) than omnivores (n = 125).

A systematic review, finally, including 61 studies [ 42 ] found mean values of fasting plasma glucose, and T2D risk to be lower in subjects following mixed vegetarian diets as compared to omnivores.

X. Cardiovascular events.

Huang et al. [ 46 ] found a significantly lower risk of ischemic heart disease (IHD) (RR: 0.71; 95%CI: 0.56, 0.87), but no significant differences for cerebrovascular mortality between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. The review by Remde et al. [ 47 ] was not conclusive, as only a few studies showed a reduction of the risk of CVDs for vegetarians versus omnivores, while the others did not find any significant results.

Dybvik et al. [ 48 ] based on 13 cohort studies for a total of 844,175 participants (115,392 with CVDs, 30,377 with IHD and 14,419 with stroke) showed that the overall RR for vegetarians vs. nonvegetarians was 0.85 (95%CI: 0.79–0.92, I 2 = 68%; 8 studies) for CVD, 0.79 (95%CI: 0.71–0.88, I 2 = 67%; 8 studies) for IHD, 0.90 (95%CI: 0.77–1.05, I 2 = 61%; 12 studies) for total stroke, while the RR of IHD in vegans vs. omnivores was 0.82 (95%CI: 0.68–1.00, I 2 = 0%; 6 studies).

The meta-analysis by Kwok et al. [ 49 ], based on 8 studies including 183,321 subjects comparing vegetarians versus non-vegetarians. They identified a significant reduction of IHD in the Seventh Day Adventist (SDA) cohort, who primarily follow ovo-lacto-vegetarian diets, while other non-SDA vegetarian diets were associated only with a modest reduction of IHD risk, raising the concern that other lifestyle factors typical of SDA and, thus not generalizable to other groups, play a primary role on outcomes. IHD was significantly reduced in both genders (RR: 0.60; 95%CI: 0.43, 0.83), while the risk of death and cerebrovascular disease and cardiovascular mortality risk reduction was significantly reduced only in men. No significant differences were detected for the risk of cerebrovascular events.

The meta-analysis by Lu et al. [ 50 ] -657,433 participants from cohort studies- reported a lower incidence of total stroke among vegetarians vs. nonvegetarians (HR = 0.66; 95%CI = 0.45–0.95; I 2 = 54%), while no differences were identified for incident stroke.

The descriptive systematic review by Babalola et al. [ 3 ] reported that adherence to a plant-based diet was inversely related to heart failure risk and advantageous for the secondary prevention of CHD, particularly if started from adolescence. Another review by Agnoli et al. [ 42 ], confirmed a lower incidence of CVDs associated with mixed vegetarian diets as compared to omnivorous diets. Finally, Chhabra et al. [ 51 ] found that vegetarian diet, particularly if started in adolescence and associated with vitamin B intake, can reduce the risk of stroke.

Gan et al. [ 52 ] described a lower risk of CVDs (RR 0.84; 95% CI 0.79 to 0.89; p < 0.05) in high, vs. low, adherence plant based diets, but the same association was not confirmed for stroke (RR 0.87; 95% CI: 0.73, 1.03).

Group 2: Pregnancy outcomes

The meta-analysis by Foster et al. [ 53 ], performed on 6 observational studies, found significantly lower zinc levels in vegetarians than in meat eaters (-1.53 ± 0.44 mg/day; p = 0.001), but no association with pregnancy outcomes, specifically no increase in low children birth weight. The finding was confirmed by Tan et al. [ 54 ], who similarly reported no specific risks, but reported that Asian (India/Nepal) vegetarian mothers exhibited increased risks to deliver a baby with Low Birth Weight (RR: 1.33 [95%CI:1.01, 1.76, p = 0.04, I 2 = 0%]; nonetheless, the WMD of neonatal birth weight in five studies they analyzed suggested no difference between vegetarians and omnivores.

To our knowledge, no reviews/meta-analyses have assessed the risk of zinc deficiency and its association with functional outcomes in pregnancy in relation to mixed or vegan diets.

Group 3: Cancer

The meta-analysis by Parra-Soto et al. [ 55 ], based on 409,110 participants from the UK Biobank study (mean follow-up 10.6 years), found a lower risk of liver, pancreatic, lung, prostate, bladder, colorectal, melanoma, kidney, non-Hodgkin lymphoma and lymphatic cancer as well as overall cancer (HR ranging from 0.29 to 0.70) determined by non-adjusted models in vegetarians vs. omnivores; when adjusted for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, multimorbidity and BMI, the associations remained statistically significant only for prostate cancer (HR 0.57; 95%CI: 0.43, 0.76), colorectal cancer (HR 0.73; 95%CI: 0.54, 0.99), and all cancers combined (HR 0.87; 95%CI 0.79, 0.96). When colorectal cancer was stratified according to subtypes, a lower risk was observed for colon (HR 0.69; 95%CI: 0.48, 0.99) and proximal colon (HR 0.43; 95%CI: 0.22, 0.82), but not for rectal or distal cancer.

Similarly, the analysis by Huang et al. [ 46 ], based on 7 studies for a total of 124,706 subjects, reported a significantly lower overall/total cancer incidence in vegetarians than non-vegetarians (RR 0.82; 95%CI: 0.67, 0.97).

Zhao et al. [ 56 ] found a lower risk of digestive system cancer in plant-based dieters (RR = 0.82, 95%CI: 0.78–0.86; p< 0.001) and in vegans (RR: 0.80; 95%CI: 0.74, 0.86; p<0.001) as compared to meat eaters.

Additionally, DeClercq et al. [ 57 ] reported a decreased risk of overall cancer and colorectal cancer, but inconsistent results for prostate cancer and breast cancer; this was substantiated by Godos et al. [ 58 ] found no significant differences in breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer risk between vegetarians and non-vegetarians.

The umbrella review by Gianfredi et al. [ 59 ], did describe a lower risk of pancreatic cancer associated with vegetarian diets.

Dinu et al. [ 14 ] reported a reduction in the risk of total cancer of 8% in vegetarians, and of 15% in vegans, as compared to omnivores. They described lower risk of cancer among vegetarians (RR 0.92; 95%CI 0.87, 0.98) and vegans (RR: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.75,0.95); nonetheless, they also described non-significant reduced risk of mortality from colorectal, breast, lung and prostate cancers. Regarding the latter, a meta-analysis by Gupta et al. [ 60 ] on prostate cancer risk found a decreased hazard ratio for the incidence of prostate cancer (HR: 0.69; 95%CI: 0.54–0.89, P<0.001) in vegetarians as compared to omnivores from the evidence coming from 3 studies. In the vegan population, similar results were observed from the only included study (HR: 0.65; 95%CI: 0.49–0.85; p<0.001).

Group 4: Death by cardiometabolic diseases and cancer

According to Huang et al. [ 46 ], the mortality from IHD (RR: 0.71; 95%CI: 0.56, 0.87), circulatory diseases (RR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.54, 1.14) and cerebrovascular diseases (RR: 0.88; 95%CI: 0.70, 1.06) was significantly lower in vegetarians than in non-vegetarians.

The analysis by Dinu et al. [ 14 ] performed on 7 prospective studies, overall including 65,058 vegetarians, reported a 25% reduced mortality risk from ischemic heart diseases (RR 0.75; 95%CI: 0.68, 0.82; p<0.001), but no significant differences were found analyzing 5 cohort studies in terms of mortality from CVDs, cerebrovascular diseases, nor colorectal, breast, prostate, and lung cancer. Regarding vegans, they analyzed 6 cohort studies, and found no differences in all-cause mortality, but significant differences in cancer incidence (RR: 0.85; 95%CI: 0.75, 0.95), indicating a protective effect of vegan diets.

The literature search did not identify studies focusing on mortality risk for cardiometabolic and cancer diseases in vegans.

Quality of the included studies

The quality of the 48 reviews and meta-analyses included in this umbrella review was assessed through the AMSTAR-R tool. Results are reported in S1 Table . Overall, the average quality score was 28, corresponding to mean quality. However, 36 studies (75%) scored between 60% and 90% of the maximum obtainable score, and can, therefore, be considered of good/very good quality. The least satisfied item on the R-AMSTAR grid was #8 -scientific quality of included studies used to draw conclusions-, where as many as 19 studies (39.6%) failed to indicate the use of study-related quality analysis to make recommendations. This finding should be read in conjunction with the missing quality analysis in 15 studies (31.3%)–Item #7 scientific quality of included studies assessed and documented-. Item #10, regarding publication bias, was the second least met item, in which 18 studies (37.5%) did not perform any analysis on this type of bias. 16 studies (33.3%) lacked to indicate careful exclusion of duplicates (Item #2), but also the presence of conflict of interest (Item #11). This point is certainly another important piece to consider in the overall quality assessment of these articles. All these considerations give us a picture of a general low quality of the publications found, lowering the strength of evidence as well as the external validity of the results.

This umbrella review provides an update on the benefits associated with the adoption of A/AFPDs in reducing risk factors associated with the development of cardiometabolic diseases and cancer, considering both the adult and the pediatric population, as well as pregnant women.

Compared to omnivorous regimens, vegetarian and vegan diets appear to significantly improve the metabolic profile through the reduction of total and LDL cholesterol [ 14 – 21 , 23 , 25 ], fasting blood glucose and HbA1c [ 14 , 24 , 25 , 37 , 39 – 41 ], and are associated with lower body weight/BMI, as well as reduced levels of inflammation (evaluated by serum CRP levels [ 27 , 30 ]), while the effect on HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels remains debated. A much more limited body of literature suggested vegetarian, but not vegan diets also reduce ApoB levels further improving the lipid profile [ 61 ].

It should be remarked that, in the majority of the cases, people adopting plant-based diets are more prone to engage in healthy lifestyles that include regular physical activity, reduction/avoidance of sugar-sweetened beverages, alcohol and tobacco, that, in association with previously mentioned modification of diet [ 62 ], lead to the reduction of the risk of ischemic heart disease and related mortality, and, to a lesser extent, of other CVDs.

The adoption of vegan diets is known to increase the risk of vitamin B-12 deficiency and consequent disorders–for which appropriate supplementation was recommended by a 2016 position paper of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics’ [ 5 ], but, apparently, does not modify the risk of pregnancy-induced hypertension nor gestational diabetes mellitus [ 53 , 54 ].

The three meta-analyses [ 46 , 55 , 57 ] that analyzed the overall risk of cancer incidence in any form concordantly showed a reduction in risk in vegetarians compared to omnivores. These general results were inconsistent in the stratified analyses for cancer types, which as expected involved smaller numbers of events and wider confidence intervals, especially for less prevalent types of cancers.

The stratified analyses in the different reviews did not show any significant difference for bladder, melanoma, kidney, lymphoma, liver, lung, or breast cancer. Conversely the three meta-analyses that addressed colorectal cancer [ 55 , 57 , 58 ] showed a decrease in risk in two out of three with one not showing a significant difference in vegetarians versus omnivores for the generic colorectal tract.

Interestingly, one review [ 55 ] showed how analysis with even more specific granularity could reveal significant differences in particular subsets of cancers, e.g., distal, and proximal colon. Also, another recent review found significant results for pancreatic cancer [ 59 ].

Our umbrella review seems consistent with other primary evidence that links the consumption of red processed meats to an increased risk of cancers of the gastro-intestinal tract [ 63 ]. The association certainly has two faces, because while a potential risk of cancer given by increased red meat consumption can be observed, the potential protective factor given by increased fruit and vegetable consumption, shown by other previous evidence, must also be considered [ 64 ].

It has also been described that vegetarians, in addition to reduced meat intake, ate less refined grains, added fats, sweets, snacks foods, and caloric beverages than did nonvegetarians and had increased consumption of a wide variety of plant foods [ 65 ]. Such a dietary pattern seems responsible for a reduction of hyperinsulinemia, one of the possible factors for colorectal cancer risk related to diet and food intake [ 66 , 67 ]. In the same manner, some research has suggested that insulin-like growth factors and its binding proteins may relate to cancer risk [ 68 , 69 ]. This dietary pattern should not be regarded as a universal principle, as varying tendencies have been observed among vegetarians and vegans in different studies. This pattern of consumption may potentially negate the anticipated beneficial effects of their diets.

Also, some protective patterns can be attributed to the effects of bioactive compounds of plant foods, these being primary sources of fiber, carotenoids, vitamins, minerals, and other compounds that have been associated with anti-cancer properties [ 70 , 71 ]. The protective patterns are likely attributed to the mechanistic actions of the many bioactives found in plant foods such as fiber, carotenoids, vitamins, and minerals with plausible anti-cancer properties. These ranged from epigenetic mechanisms [ 72 ], to immunoregulation, antioxidant and anti-inflammatory activity [ 73 , 74 ].

Finally, increased adiposity could be another pathway by which food intake is associated with these types of cancers. Since our umbrella review has demonstrated that vegetarian diets are associated with lower BMI, this might be another concurrent factor in the decreased risk for pancreatic and colorectal cancers in vegetarians.

Inflammatory biomarkers and adiposity play pivotal roles in the genesis of prostate cancer [ 75 , 76 ], hence the same etiological pathways might be hypothesized even for the increase of this type of cancer in people adopting an omnivorous diet.

The study presents several noteworthy strengths in its methodological approach and thematic focus. It has employed a rigorous and comprehensive search strategy involving two major databases, PubMed, and Scopus, spanning over two decades of research from 1 st January 2000 to 31 st June 2023, thereby ensuring a robust and exhaustive collection of pertinent literature. By utilizing an umbrella review, the research enables the synthesis of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses, providing a higher level of evidence and summarizing a vast quantity of information. Furthermore, its alignment with current health concerns, specifically targeting cardiovascular diseases and cancer, makes the study highly relevant to ongoing public health challenges and positions it as a valuable resource for informing preventive measures and dietary guidelines. The deployment of blinded and independent assessments by multiple raters and investigators fortifies the research by minimizing bias and reinforcing the reliability of the selection, quality assessment, and data extraction processes. Quality assessment is standardized using the revised AMSTAR-R 11-item tool, and transparency is fostered through registration on PROSPERO, thus enhancing the credibility of the study. Lastly, the study’s detailed analysis and reporting, particularly the extraction of specific health measures such as cholesterol levels, glucose levels, blood pressure, and cancer risks, contribute to the comprehensiveness of the data synthesis, thereby underlining the overall integrity and significance of the research.

Main limitations to data analysis and interpretation are intrinsic to the original studies and consist in the wide heterogeneity in terms of sample size, demographic features, and geographical origin of included subjects, dietary patterns–not only in terms of quality, but, even more important and often neglected, quantity, distribution during the day, processing, cooking methods–and adherence, and other lifestyle confounders. In this regard, it is worth to mention that the impact of diet per se on the development of complex disorders (i.e. CVDs and cancer) and related mortality is extremely difficult to assess [ 71 ], especially in large populations, characterized by a highly heterogeneous lifestyle. It should also be considered the heterogeneity in dietary and lifestyle habits among countries, according to which the adoption of A/AFPDs could modify significantly habits in some countries, but not in others, and consequently have an extremely different impact on the risk of developing cardiometabolic disorders and cancer [ 25 ]. Furthermore, due to the nature of umbrella reviews, the present work may not include novel associations which were excluded from the analyzed reviews, as the main aim was to summarize secondary studies, such as reviews and meta-analyses. Finally, studies assessing the benefit of A/AFPDs on cancer risk are also limited by the heterogeneity in the timing of oncological evaluation and, therefore, disease progression, as well as in the histological subtypes and previous/concomitant treatments [ 72 – 75 ].

In conclusion, this umbrella review offers valuable insights on the estimated reduction of risk factors for cardiometabolic diseases and cancer, and the CVDs-associated mortality, offered by the adoption of plant-based diets through pleiotropic mechanisms. Through the improvement of glycolipid profile, reduction of body weight/BMI, blood pressure, and systemic inflammation, A/AFPDs significantly reduce the risk of ischemic heart disease, gastrointestinal and prostate cancer, as well as related mortality.

However, data should be taken with caution because of the important methodological limitation associated with the original studies. Moreover, potential risks associated with insufficient intake of vitamin and other elements due to unbalanced and/or extremely restricted dietary regimens, together with specific patient needs should be considered, while promoting research on new and more specific markers (i.e. biochemical, genetic, epigenetic markers; microbiota profile) recently associated with cardiometabolic and cancer risk, before suggesting A/AFPDs on large scale.

Supporting information

S1 table. r-amstar..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711.s001

S2 Table. PRISMA 2020 checklist.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0300711.s002

View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

Open access
Published: 21 May 2024

Therapies for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: a systematic review of 157 cases

Austin Hwang 1 ,
Andie Kwon 1 ,
Corinne H. Miller 3 ,
Antonia Reimer-Taschenbrecker 1 , 2 &
Amy S. Paller ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6187-6549 1

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases volume 19 , Article number: 206 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

209 Accesses

1 Altmetric

Metrics details

Invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCC) are a leading cause of death in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), a rare blistering genodermatosis. Outcomes of RDEB-cSCC therapies have primarily been described in case reports. Systematic studies are scarce. This systematic review aims to assess the pathophysiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of RDEB-cSCCs, with a focus on results and mechanisms of recent immunotherapies and anti-EGFR treatments.

A systematic literature search of epidermolysis bullosa and cSCC was performed in February 2024, using PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EudraCT databases. Cases with administration of systematic therapies and unpublished outcomes regarding death were tracked with corresponding authors. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment was performed by two independent reviewers. Of 1132 references in the original search, 163 relevant articles were identified, representing 59 case reports, 7 cohort studies, 49 abstracts, 47 in-vitro/in-vivo experiments, and 1 bioinformatic study. From these, 157 cases of RDEB-cSCCs were included. The majority of RDEB-cSCCs were well-differentiated (64.1%), ulcerated (59.6%), and at least 2 cm in size (77.6%), with a median age at diagnosis of 30 years old (range 6–68.4). Surgery was the primary form of treatment ( n = 128), followed by chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Anti-EGFR therapy and immunotherapy was also reported beginning in 2009 and 2019, respectively. Survival time from first cSCC diagnosis to death was available in 50 cases. When stratified by their treatment regimen, median survival time was 1.85 years (surgery + chemotherapy, n = 6), 2 years (surgery only, n = 19), 4.0 years (+ anti-EFGR therapy, n = 10), 4 years (surgery + radiotherapy, n = 9), 4.6 years (+ immunotherapy, n = 4), and 9.5 years (surgery + chemotherapy + radiotherapy; n = 2). Treatment-related adverse events were primarily limited to impaired wound healing for immunotherapies and nausea and fatigue for anti-EGFR therapies.

Conclusions

Despite the challenges of a limited sample size in a rare disease, this systematic review provides an overview of treatment options for cSCCs in RDEB. When surgical treatment options have been exhausted, the addition of immunotherapy and/or anti-EGFR therapies may extend patient survival. However, it is difficult to attribute extended survival to any single treatment, as multiple therapeutic modalities are often used to treat RDEB-cSCCs.

Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB) is a rare inherited skin blistering disorder, characterized by a marked deficiency of functional collagen VII [ 1 ]. The leading cause of death in adults with RDEB is cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC), with an age-related increasing cumulative risk of developing at least one cSCC (7.5% at age 20 years, 52% at 30 years, and 80% at 45 years) and subsequent mortality (38.7% by age 35 years, 70% by 40 years, and 78.7% by 55 years) [ 2 ].

The pathogenesis of RDEB-cSCCs has not been fully elucidated. However, existing literature suggests that pro-inflammatory cytokines, APOBEC family proteins, and proteins involved in fibrosis play a role in its aggressive nature relative to conventional UV-induced cSCC [ 3 , 4 , 5 ]. Furthermore, RDEB-cSCCs often occur on the extremities in photo-protected areas of chronic ulceration and fibrosis [ 6 ].

Surgical management by wide, local excision or amputation is considered first-line therapy for RDEB-cSCCs. However, determining tumor margins is challenging due to the background of inflammation and scarring in RDEB [ 7 ]. Other therapies such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, immunotherapy, and anti-epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) may also be recommended for palliative care or for advanced and/or metastatic SCCs [ 7 ]. However, evidence is limited to a handful of case reports and series.

This systematic review aims to summarize clinical advancements in the treatment of RDEB-cSCCs [ 8 , 9 ] with a focus on results and mechanisms related to EGFR and PD-1 inhibitor therapies. Our review additionally presents data on patient survival after various therapeutic modalities.

Of 1132 references in the original search, 163 relevant articles were identified, representing 59 case reports, 7 cohort studies, 49 abstracts, 47 in-vitro/in-vivo experiments, and one bioinformatic study (Fig. 1 ). From this, 157 cases of RDEB with at least one cSCC were included. Among them, 76 were classified as RDEB-severe (RDEB-S), 13 RDEB-intermediate (RDEB-I), 1 RDEB-inversa, and 1 RDEB-pruriginosa. The remaining 66 cases were of undefined RDEB clinical subtype. The diagnosis of RDEB was made using multiple methods, including clinical diagnosis only ( n = 23), genetic analysis ( n = 39), immunohistochemistry ( n = 18), and electron microscopy ( n = 16); 70 cases did not report diagnostic techniques.

Systematic review PRISMA diagram

Pathophysiology

While RDEB-cSCC pathogenesis is not well understood, many theories attribute the aggressive nature of RDEB-cSCCs to factors involving altered wound healing processes, genetic differences, and impaired immune responses. The absence of type VII collagen, inherent to RDEB, directly interferes with wound healing by enhancing keratinocyte migration and upregulating tumorigenesis and angiogenesis through high levels of TGF-β signaling [ 4 , 5 , 10 ]. Increased TGF-β expression is hypothesized to cause a stroma altered in its organization, driving tumor progression through mechanosensing signaling by β1 integrin, activated focal adhesion kinase (FAK), and phosphoinositide 3-kinase (PI3K) [ 4 ].

Specific mutations in NOTCH1/2/4 , TP53 , and MYC , along with the activation of TGF-β receptor signaling pathways, may distinguish the clinical behavior of RDEB-cSCCs [ 11 , 12 , 13 ]. In contrast to conventional cSCCs, UV damage does not play a significant role in RDEB-cSCC pathogenesis. Instead, driver mutations in RDEB-cSCCs are generated endogenously by high activity rates of APOBEC (apolipoprotein-B mRNA editing enzyme, catalyic polypeptide-like) enzymes that are often observed in chronic wounds [ 3 ], accounting for the typical localization of RDEB-cSCCs to chronic wound sites. Peritumoral infiltration by immune cells is also reduced in RDEB skin. In particular, RDEB-cSCCs demonstrated significant reductions in CD3 + , CD4 + , and CD68 + expression (cells/mm 2 ) compared to conventional cSCCs, and CD3 + , CD4 + , CD8 + , and CD20 + compared to secondary cSCC (post-burns and post-radiotherapy) [ 14 ].

Clinical presentation

The median age at diagnosis specified in 144 individuals with RDEB and cSCCs was 30 years (interquartile range (IQR) 24–36 years and range, 6–68 years); only 7 were patients younger than 18 years. The majority of RDEB-cSCCs were well-differentiated (59 of 92; 64.1%), ulcerated (31 of 51; 59.6%), and at least 2 cm in size (52 of 67; 77.6%). No sex differences were observed in RDEB as a whole or its severe vs. intermediate subtypes. RDEB-cSCCs often presented in the distal upper and lower extremities with the greatest predilection for the feet (28.3%), shins including knee (21.5%), hands (19.3%), and forearm including elbow (13.0%). The presence of metastases was evaluated in 73 cases (46.5%); of these, 41 cases (56.2%) demonstrated loco-regional and 8 cases (11.0%) visceral metastases. The remaining 24 cases (32.9%) had not developed metastases at the time of reporting. Table 1 presents additional information on the demographic, clinical, and histopathological features of the included cSCCs.

Assessment and diagnosis

The diagnosis of RDEB-cSSC is made clinically and histologically. Although not performed routinely, immunohistochemistry for tumor PD-L1 and EGFR expression may predict whether a patient benefits from targeted systemic therapies, such as immunotherapies and anti-EGFR (primarily cetuximuab) treatments. Among patients treated with immunotherapies in our systemic review, immunohistochemistry for PD-L1 or EGFR expression was performed in 11 (52.4%) prior to the initiation of immunotherapy; 10 had no testing performed or did not specify. Predictors of positive response to cetuximab therapy include tumor overexpression of EGFR and absence of mutations in the KRAS gene [ 15 , 16 ]. However, the molecular profile of cSCCs in EB was only been reported in 9 of 21 cases treated with immunotherapy or anti-EGFR therapy [ 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 ]. In these, EGFR ( n = 7), PD-L1 ( n = 3), and COX-2 ( n = 1) were overexpressed based on immunohistochemistry. TERT ( n = 1) and CTCF mutations ( n = 1) have been identified by RNA sequencing.

Other unique biomarkers are also overexpressed in RDEB-cSCCs. Serine proteases, C1r, and C1s, were found to be significantly overexpressed in RDEB-associated and invasive sporadic cSCCs, relative to cSCC in situ, actinic keratosis, and normal skin [ 23 ]. Cancer-type SLCO1B3 transcripts were specifically detected in RDEB-cSCC cell lines ( n = 7) and isolated from extracellular vesicles, both in vitro and in the serum of tumor-bearing mice [ 24 ]. For assessment of metastases, local and regional assessments were primarily diagnosed using lymph node biopsy ( n = 13) to distinguish inflammation vs. metastasis and magnetic resonance imaging to evaluate extent of tumor invasion ( n = 7). Pathological examination confirmed the presence of axillary, clavicular, or inguinal lymph node metastases in eight cases (53.3%) [ 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 ], while five cases were attributed to nodal inflammation [ 25 , 29 , 30 ]. Due to limited details in case reports, lymph node biopsies could not be further specified as sentinel nodes or random regional samples; as such, the role of sentinel node biopsies remains unclear in surgical cSCC resections. In five cases, primary cSCCs invaded the muscles ( n = 4) and neurovasculature ( n = 1) [ 15 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 ]. In one case, initial imaging raised the suspicion of bone metastases but subsequent biopsy demonstrated osteonecrosis without tumor cells [ 35 ].

Distant metastases were evaluated by computed tomography imaging (CT; n = 16) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography imaging (PET-CT; n = 26). CT imaging detected metastases in 7 cases (43.8%), in which three showed loco-regional metastases in axillary and/or clavicular lymph nodes [ 18 , 28 ]. Visceral metastases were detected in the lungs in four cases [ 17 , 32 , 36 , 37 ]. In the remaining nine cases, imaging was negative [ 28 , 30 , 31 , 35 , 38 , 39 , 40 ]. When evaluated by PET-CT imaging, regional metastases were detected in ten cases [ 15 , 18 , 28 ]. In the remaining 16 cases, imaging was negative [ 20 , 22 , 28 , 41 , 42 ].

Surgical approaches to cSCCs were reported in 131 cases. The most common techniques included excisions ( n = 96; 73.2%), amputations ( n = 29; 22.1%), and Mohs micrographic surgery ( n = 3; 2.3%). Surgical excision was performed in 96 cases and clinical outcomes were described in 31. In nine cases, patients developed loco-regional ( n = 7) or visceral metastasis ( n = 2). In 11 cases, no evidence of recurrence or metastases were observed at follow-up, ranging from 2–36 months (median 6.5 months). In the remaining cases, patients developed more cSCCs and underwent additional therapeutic interventions [ 43 ]. Mohs micrographic surgery (MMS) was performed in 3 cases, with only one patient achieving complete response at 16 months of follow-up [ 44 ].

Surgical amputations of at least one part of a limb were reported in 29 cases, with surgical sites specified in 23 [ 45 , 46 ]. Amputations of the lower or upper extremities were performed in 8 and 14 cases, respectively. Both lower and upper distal extremities were amputated in 1 patient. The clinical course of these patients was further described in 14 cases: three developed new cSCCs, three developed loco-regional ( n = 2) or visceral metastases ( n = 1), three achieved complete remission, and five patients were reported to have died, with 3 related to metastasis.

Chemotherapy

Thirty patients were treated with conventional chemotherapy ( n = 12) or electrochemotherapy (chemotherapy after local electroporation; n = 18). The clinical outcomes of six patients treated with conventional chemotherapy were further described: one demonstrated disease progression [ 37 ], one switched to cetuximab therapy due to poor tolerance of chemotherapy [ 15 ], and four died [ 17 , 33 , 37 , 47 ]. In comparison, the results of electrochemotherapy are more favorable. By inducing membrane permeability with short, intense electric pulses (electroporation), hydrophilic drugs such as bleomycin can gain direct access to the cytosol and demonstrate higher cytotoxicity by several 100-fold [ 48 ]. Among the 18 cases treated with electrochemotherapy, the clinical outcomes of 13 patients were further described: 2 demonstrated disease progression [ 18 , 27 ], 4 partial response [ 19 , 20 , 49 , 50 ], 6 patients complete response [ 49 , 50 ], and 1 stable disease [ 27 ]. Adverse events related to electrochemotherapy were primarily limited to pain, erythema, and ulceration [ 27 , 49 , 50 ].

Radiotherapy and topical photodynamic therapy

A total of 26 patients were treated with radiotherapy ( n = 24) or topical photodynamic therapy ( n = 2). Of the 24 cases with radiotherapy treatment, the clinical outcomes of 8 patients were reported: one achieved a partial response, one complete response with concurrent chemotherapy of 4 years, two disease progression, and four survived for an additional 3, 6, 7, and 40 months. The total radiation doses ranged from 57 to 70.2 Gy (median 63 Gy) [ 25 , 35 , 51 , 52 ]. In one case with topical photodynamic therapy, the patient achieved a complete response with no observable recurrence at a 2-year follow-up [ 53 ].

Immunotherapy

PD-1 inhibitor immunotherapy was used in 11 patients: cemiplimab ( n = 8), nivolumab ( n = 1), and pembrolizumab ( n = 2). One patient concurrently used pembrolizumab and an intralesional oncolytic viral therapy, talimogene laherparepvec (T-VEC). Among those receiving cemiplimab, two achieved complete response and three reported stable disease [ 22 , 27 , 34 , 54 , 55 , 56 ], but the clinical outcome of the recent sixth patient remains unknown [ 28 ]. Adverse events, particularly mild fatigue and nausea, were commonly reported with cemiplimab therapy. In the single case of nivolumab therapy, treatment was generally well-tolerated apart from fatigue, and the patient has remained in remission off therapy for four months at the time of publication [ 57 ]. Of the two patients receiving pembrolizumab, one demonstrated a > 50% size reduction in cSCCs and complete healing of ulcerated areas after 12 months, while the other died from tumor progression [ 19 , 20 ]. Immune-related thyroiditis was the only adverse event reported with pembrolizumab [ 20 ]. In the single case of T-VEC, therapy was administered intralesional to the cervical and axillary lymph node metastases, but tumor progression resulted in patient demise 5 months later [ 19 ]. Table 2 summarizes cases of cSCC treated by immunotherapy.

Anti-EGFR therapy

Anti-EGFR therapy was reported in 9 articles, describing 13 patients [ 6 , 15 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 21 , 28 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. All 13 patients received cetuximab, but one also received panitumumab [ 19 ]. Four demonstrated partial response, but later progressed to lung metastases ( n = 2), development of new nodules ( n = 2), or primary tumor progression ( n = 1) [ 17 , 18 , 21 , 55 ]. In one patient, marked improvement was initially reported, but the tumor recurred six months after treatment [ 57 ]. Stable disease was observed in two patients, noting progression-free survival of at least 3 and 9 months, respectively [ 15 , 19 ]. Clinical outcomes of the remaining five patients are unknown [ 6 , 28 ]. Adverse events associated with cetuximab included: impaired wound healing ( n = 2), grade 2 allergic reaction with circulatory collapse, chest tightness, erythema, fever, and chills ( n = 1), vesicular eruption ( n = 1), acneiform folliculitis ( n = 1), and mild dry skin ( n = 1). Table 3 summarizes cases of cSCC treated by anti-EGFR therapy.

Given the aggressive nature of RDEB-cSCCs, multiple successive treatment modalities are often used. It is therefore difficult to determine the exact survival benefit of each intervention; however, our systematic review demonstrated that, in most cases, additional interventions after surgical management prolong patient survival. Median survival time was 1.85 years (surgery + chemotherapy, n = 6), 2 years (surgery only, n = 19), 4 years (+ anti-EFGR therapy, n = 10), 4 years (surgery + radiotherapy, n = 9), 4.6 years (+ immunotherapy, n = 4), and 9.5 years (surgery + chemotherapy + radiotherapy; n = 2) (Fig. 2 ). The median follow-up time from latest treatment could only be determined for systemic treatments: 3.6 years (+ immunotherapy, n = 1) and 1.7 years (+ anti-EGFR therapy, n = 3). Furthermore, age at first cSCC diagnosis was not correlated with length of survival (rho = 0.06). Detailed information about patient demographics, histopathological features, and clinical courses can be found in Supplemental Table 1, Additional file 1 .

Kaplan–Meier Survival Curve. This curve shows cSCC-specific survival for patients with RDEB based on their therapeutic regimen: Surgery (SX) only ( n = 19); SX + Chemotherapy (CHT) ( n = 6), SX + Radiotherapy (RT) ( n = 9), SX + CHT + RT ( n = 2), + Immunotherapy ( n = 4), and + anti-EGFR therapy ( n = 10)

Invasive cSCC is a leading cause of death in patients with RDEB. However, with unique markers such as C1r and C1s, the progression of cSCC can be monitored, and Cancer type- SLCO1B3 transcripts may be used to detect RDEB-cSCC metastases. Given the aggressive and recurrent presentation of RDEB-cSCCs, often with regional and visceral metastases, C1r, C1s, and Ct- SLCO1B3 transcripts provide a unique method of monitoring disease progression and determining the appropriate therapeutic intervention.

Wide, deep surgical excision serves as first-line therapy for cSCCs. When performed in earlier stages of disease, this intervention may be successful. However, as standard first-line therapy, surgical outcomes are infrequently published, in contrast to complicated, advanced stage cSCCs that are refractory to surgical intervention and require systemic therapies. Therefore, the true benefit of surgical intervention may be greater than reported in our analysis.

Poor outcomes were reported in the few patients treated with conventional chemotherapy, supporting current recommendations that the risks may outweigh potential benefits [ 7 ]. In many cases, chemotherapy was poorly tolerated and disease progression often occurred, resulting in patient death. However, when chemotherapeutic agents were delivered to tumor cells after electroporation, complete responses were observed in 6 patients (46.2%) [ 49 , 50 ]. The dimension of cSCCs that responded completely to electrochemotherapy ranged from 3 to 15 cm. These results further support existing recommendations that electrochemotherapy may be a potential treatment for RDEB-cSCCs and should be further evaluated in larger cohorts [ 7 ].

Radiotherapy can be complicated by delayed wound healing and skin ulcerations due to exposure to ionizing radiation. However, by delivering radiotherapy in small fractions, patients may better tolerate this therapy. In our systematic review examining 8 patients treated with radiotherapy and known clinical outcomes, only one patient achieved a clinical response. As such, there is insufficient evidence to support radiotherapy as a definitive treatment for RDEB-cSCCs [ 7 ].

The limited reports of immunotherapies and anti-EGFR therapy for RDEB SCCs have shown promising results in the treatment of RDEB SCCs. Cemiplimab, a PD-1 inhibitor, approved by the FDA in September 2018 for the treatment of metastatic or locally advanced cSCC for which no curative local treatment options are available, was used in 5 patients. Other PD-1 inhibitors such as nivolumab and pembrolizumab, approved for the management of advanced head and neck SCC in November 2016 and June 2020 respectively, were used in 1 and 2 patients, respectively. Anti-EGFR therapy with cetuximab, approved for late-stage head and neck SCC in November 2011, has also been reported in 12 cases. Rigosertib, a polo-like kinase 1 inhibitor, is currently being studied for RDEB-cSCCs with promising outcomes [ 58 , 59 , 60 ].

As shown in Fig. 2 , our analysis suggests that the addition of immunotherapy and/or anti-EGFR therapies may extend patient survival when first-line surgical management options have been exhausted. It is difficult to determine the added benefit in survival time with immunotherapy and anti-EGFR therapies, as our estimated survival time of 2 years with only surgical management is grossly underestimated due to publication bias favoring more complex cases. Furthermore, these results are limited by the small sample size. Despite the rarity of RDEB, larger cohort studies will be needed to confirm our conclusions and address existing knowledge gaps, including determining the prevalence of PD-1 and EGFR tumor expression in RDEB-cSCCs and correlating increased expression with response to immunotherapy or anti-EGFR therapy, respectively. If such molecular markers are discovered to be common, clinical practice may be modified to include PD-L1 and EGFR staining, alongside routine histologic assessment. In the phase 2 study Keynote-055, in which patients with head and neck cSCC refractory to platinum and cetuximab were treated with pembrolizumab, no significant differences in response rates were observed between those with ≥ 50% PD-1 expression (i.e. percentage of tumor and mononuclear inflammatory cells within tumor nests and adjacent supporting stroma expressing PD-L1 at any intensity) and < 50% PD-1 expression (27% [95%CI 15–42] vs. 13% [95%CI 7–20], respectively) [ 61 ]. However, with further stratification of PD-1 expression, a positive prognostic relationship may become clear. Similar studies should also be conducted with anti-EGFR therapy to determine a threshold for EGFR expression that predicts improved response rates and clinical benefit. While these therapies can potentially extend patient survival, their low availability, cost, and poor tolerability, including frequent immune-mediated side effects, are challenges that contribute to their use as a last resort for late-stage cSCCs.

Several limitations of our analysis must be acknowledged. Firstly, existing literature on RDEB-cSCCs primarily consists of case reports and series, which are biased towards novel or favorable outcomes. Furthermore, these literary sources often did not report the time or age of a patient’s cSCC diagnosis or time or age of death, since written while patients are still alive, limiting the availability of patient survival data based on treatment. As such, long-term responses are unclear, including related to the use of more recently introduced EGFR and PD-1 inhibitors with their early good outcomes, limiting generalizable conclusions. Secondly, multiple therapeutic modalities are often used to treat cSCCs. Therefore, we could not determine benefits as such extended survival to a single therapy. Thirdly, literary sources included in our systematic review varied in time of publication (from 1969 to 2022). Consequently, fewer years of patient survival were reported in older literature when modern therapeutic modalities were unavailable.

Even with evidence for efficacy of immunotherapies and anti-EGFR therapies, these drugs are not readily available for RDEB patients due to administrative hurdles. In many cases, their use will remain off-label and health insurances may be hesitant to cover their significant costs, given the life-threatening course of RDEB and high risk of additional aggressive cSCCs. Results from this analysis provide evidence for improving individual treatment decisions in late-stage RDEB-cSCC. At the same time, all possible efforts should be made to improve early detection of RDEB-cSCC, reducing the need for advanced therapies.

In summary, the majority of RDEB-cSCCs are well-differentiated, ulcerated, and at least 2 cm in size with the most frequent localization to the distal upper and lower extremities. Our analysis of treatment regimens for RDEB-cSCCs suggests that when surgical treatment options have been exhausted, the addition of immunotherapy and/or anti-EGFR therapies may extend patient survival. Use of immunotherapies and anti-EGFR therapies as neoadjuvant therapies should also be explored. A recent phase II study in non-EB patients with resectable stage II to IV (M0) cSCC treated with cemiplimab as neoadjuvant therapy prior to surgery demonstrated an objective response on imaging in 54 patients (68%; 95% CI, 57 to 78) [ 62 ]. In total, five achieved a complete response and 49 a partial response [ 62 ].

Eligibility criteria

A systematic literature review of PubMed (NLM/NIH), Embase (Elsevier), ClinicalTrials.gov, European Union Clinical Trials Registry, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) databases was conducted from inception to February 15, 2024 and followed PRISMA guidelines. Our original protocol was published on PROSPERO (CRD42022309377).

A search strategy was defined (see Supplementary Table 2, Additional file 1 ). Database records were collated and de-duplicated in EndNote and uploaded to Rayyan [ 63 ] for screening. Articles included pathophysiology and/or therapies for RDEB and cSCC without restrictions on publication year. Review articles, books, editorials, and non-English text manuscripts were excluded.

All articles were independently screened by at least two authors (AH, ART, AK). Screening was conducted in two rounds: first by title and abstract, then by full text. If a consensus was not reached, a fourth author (AP) was included to make a final determination.

Data extraction

Data extraction was performed independently by two authors (AH, AK). Information related to patient demographics and clinical characteristics of RDEB and cSCCs were extracted. Cases that were suspected as duplicates (ie, identical age, treatment regimen, location of cSCCs) were removed. Cases with systemic therapies and unpublished outcomes regarding patient vital status were tracked with corresponding authors via e-mail; of which, 5 of 9 authors responded with patient survival data. Data is available through request to the investigators.

Risk of bias assessment

The Joanna Briggs Institute tool [ 64 ], Cochrane’s Risk of Bias 2 tool [ 65 ], and U.S. National Toxicology Program’s Office of Health Assessment tool [ 66 ] were used to identify possible risk of bias in case reports/series and cohort studies, clinical trials, and all other studies, respectively. Overall, the risk of bias was low (see Supplementary Table 3–5, Additional file 1 ).

Statistical analysis

The impact of therapies on patient survival time, defined here as the timeframe between first cSCC diagnosis to death, was determined by categorizing each patient by their treatment regimen. Kaplan–Meier-diagrams were compiled using GraphPad Prism (version 9.4.1, GraphPad Software, San Diego, California USA, www.graphpad.com ) to depict survival times with different therapies. Linear regression analysis was performed using Excel (version 2304, Microsoft Software, Redmond, Washington USA, www.microsoft.com ) to determine the relationship between age at diagnosis and patient survival. No further statistical analysis could be done due to the heterogeneity of the studies.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are available in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, ClinicalTrials.gov, and EudraCT databases: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ , https://www.embase.com/ , https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search , and https://www.cochranelibrary.com/central .

Abbreviations

Unspecified chemotherapy

Cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma

Electrochemotherapy

Epidermal growth factor

5-Fluorouracil

Gemcitabine

Intermediate RDEB

Methotrexate

No response

Panitumumab

Progressive disease

Pembrolizumab

Partial response

Local recurrence or relapse

Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis buillosa

Severe RDEB

Radiotherapy
Squamous cell carcinoma

Stable disease

Talimogene laherparepvec

Not applicable as patients only underwent surgery for their treatment

Has C, Bauer JW, Bodemer C, Bolling MC, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Diem A, et al. Consensus reclassification of inherited epidermolysis bullosa and other disorders with skin fragility. Br J Dermatol. 2020;183(4):614–27.

Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Fine J-D, Johnson LB, Weiner M, Li K-P, Suchindran C. Epidermolysis bullosa and the risk of life-threatening cancers: the National EB Registry experience, 1986–2006. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2009;60(2):203–11.

Article PubMed Google Scholar

Cho RJ, Alexandrov LB, den Breems NY, Atanasova VS, Farshchian M, Purdom E, et al. APOBEC mutation drives early-onset squamous cell carcinomas in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Sci Transl Med. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aas9668 .

Guerra L, Odorisio T, Zambruno G, Castiglia D. Stromal microenvironment in type VII collagen-deficient skin: The ground for squamous cell carcinoma development. Matrix Biol. 2017;63:1–10.

Twaroski K, Chen W, Pickett-Leonard M, Tolar J. Role of transforming growth factor-β1 in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa squamous cell carcinoma. Exp Dermatol. 2021;30(5):664–75.

Kim M, Li M, Intong-Wheeler LRA, Tran K, Marucci D, Murrell DF. Epidemiology and Outcome of Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Epidermolysis Bullosa in Australia and New Zealand. Acta Derm Venereol. 2018;98(1):70–6.

Mellerio JE, Robertson SJ, Bernardis C, Diem A, Fine JD, George R, et al. Management of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in patients with epidermolysis bullosa: best clinical practice guidelines. Br J Dermatol. 2016;174(1):56–67.

Montaudié H, Chiaverini C, Sbidian E, Charlesworth A, Lacour J-P. Inherited epidermolysis bullosa and squamous cell carcinoma: a systematic review of 117 cases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):117.

Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Bonamonte D, Filoni A, De Marco A, Lospalluti L, Nacchiero E, Ronghi V, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma in patients with inherited epidermolysis bullosa: Review of current literature. Cells. 2022;11(8):1365.

Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar

Martins VL, Vyas JJ, Chen M, Purdie K, Mein CA, South AP, et al. Increased invasive behaviour in cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma with loss of basement-membrane type VII collagen. J Cell Sci. 2009;122(Pt 11):1788–99.

Slater SD, McGrath JA, Hobbs C, Eady RA, McKee PH. Expression of mutant p53 gene in squamous carcinoma arising in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Histopathology. 1992;20(3):237–41.

Arbiser JL, Fan C-Y, Su X, Van Emburgh BO, Cerimele F, Miller MS, et al. Involvement of p53 and p16 tumor suppressor genes in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa-associated squamous cell carcinoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2004;123(4):788–90.

Sans-DeSanNicolas L, Caratú G, Vidal-Cortés O, Sanchez-Redondo S, Ferrer B, Mancuso F, et al. Genetic Profiles of Squamous Cell Carcinomas Associated with Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Unveil NOTCH and TP53 Mutations and an Increased MYC Expression. J Invest Dermatol. 2018;138(6):1423–7.

Filoni A, Cicco G, Cazzato G, Bosco A, Lospalluti L, Tucci M, et al. Immune Disregulation in Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma of Patients with Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa: A Single Pilot Study. Life (Basel, Switzerland). 2022;12(2):213.

CAS PubMed Google Scholar

Arnold AW, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Zuger C, Itin PH. Cetuximab therapy of metastasizing cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in a patient with severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Dermatology. 2009;219(1):80–3.

Allegra CJ, Jessup JM, Somerfield MR, Hamilton SR, Hammond EH, Hayes DF, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology provisional clinical opinion: testing for KRAS gene mutations in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma to predict response to anti-epidermal growth factor receptor monoclonal antibody therapy. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(12):2091–6.

Kim M, Li M, Intong LRA, Tran K, Melbourne W, Marucci D, et al. Use of cetuximab as an adjuvant agent to radiotherapy and surgery in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa with squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol. 2013;169(1):208–10.

Diociaiuti A, Steinke H, Nyström A, Schwieger-Briel A, Meiss F, Pfannenberg C, et al. EGFR inhibition for metastasized cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2019;14(1):278.

Medek K, Koelblinger P, Koller J, Diem A, Ude-Schoder K, Bauer JW, et al. Wound healing deficits in severe generalized recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa along anticancer treatment with cetuximab. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2019;17(4):448–50.

PubMed Google Scholar

Piccerillo A, El Hachem M, De Vito R, De Luca EV, Peris K. Pembrolizumab for Treatment of a Patient With Multiple Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas and Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;156(6):708–10.

Reimer A, Lu S, He Y, Bruckner-Tuderman L, Technau-Hafsi K, Meiss F, et al. Combined anti-inflammatory and low-dose antiproliferative therapy for squamous cell carcinomas in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2020;34(1):e1-3.

Duong T, Wong D, Barrett A, Price H. Successful use of immunotherapy to treat advanced cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. BMJ Case Rep. 2021; https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2020-238966 .

Riihilä P, Viiklepp K, Nissinen L, Farshchian M, Kallajoki M, Kivisaari A, et al. Tumour-cell-derived complement components C1r and C1s promote growth of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma. Br J Dermatol. 2020;182(3):658–70.

Sun Y, Woess K, Kienzl M, Leb-Reichl VM, Feinle A, Wimmer M, et al. Extracellular Vesicles as Biomarkers for the Detection of a Tumor Marker Gene in Epidermolysis Bullosa-Associated Squamous Cell Carcinoma. J Invest Dermatol. 2018;138(5):1197–200.

Weber F, Bauer JW, Sepp N, Hogler W, Salmhofer W, Fritsch HHP. Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Junctional and Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa. Acta Der m Venereo l. 2001;81:189–92.

Article CAS Google Scholar

Georgeu GA, Ramsey KWD, El-Muttardi N, Mayou BJ. Groin dissections in epidermolysis bullosa: a report of groin dissection for the control of metastatic squamous carcinoma in patients with epidermolysis bullosa. Br J Plast Surg. 2002;55(8):678–82.

O’Sullivan GM, Clapham J, Mackenzie C, et al. Electrochemotherapy for metastatic squamous cell carcinoma in epidermolysis bullosa [abstract]. Acta Drem Venereol. 2020 100:SUPPL 220(40–41).

Robertson SJ, Orrin E, Lakhan MK, O’Sullivan G, Felton J, Robson A, et al. Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Epidermolysis Bullosa: a 28-year Retrospective Study. Acta Derm Venereol. 2021;101(8):adv00523.

Rokunohe A, Nakano H, Aizu T, Kaneko T, Nakajima K, Ikenaga S, et al. Significance of sentinel node biopsy in the management of squamous cell carcinoma arising from recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. J Dermatol. 2008;35(6):336–40.

Yamada M, Hatta N, Sogo K, Komura K, Hamaguchi Y, Takehara K. Management of squamous cell carcinoma in a patient with recessive-type epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica. Dermatol Surg. 2004;30(11):1424–9.

Perez-Naranjo L, Herrera-Saval A, Garcia-Bravo B, Perez-Bernal AM, Camacho F. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa and squamous cell carcinoma. Arch Dermatol. 2005;141(1):110–1.

Süss A, Sticherling M, Volz A, Frank R, Rudolph K-D, Simon JC. Large metastasizing squamous cell carcinoma in epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica Hallopeau-Siemens. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2007;21(4):539–41.

Lopes J, Baptista A, Moreira A. Squamous cell carcinoma in a pregnant woman with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Oxf Med Case Reports. 2020;2020(8):omaa059.

O’Sullivan GM, Clapham J, Mackenzie C, et al. Cemiplimab for metastatic squamous cell carcinoma in epidermolysis bullosa [abstract]. Acta Derm Venereol. 2020 100:SUPPL 220(40).

Saito A, Nakamura Y, Tanaka R, Inoue S, Okiyama N, Ishitsuka Y, et al. Unusual Bone Lesions with Osteonecrosis Mimicking Bone Metastasis of Squamous Cell Carcinoma in Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa. Acta Derm Venereol. 2019;99(12):1166–9.

Miura K, Umegaki N, Kitaoka T, Kubota T, Namba N, Etani Y, et al. A Male Patient with Humoral Hypercalcemia of Malignancy (HHM) with Leukocytosis Caused by Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma Resulting from Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa. Clin Pediatr Endocrinol. 2011;20(3):65–71.

Lentz SR, Raish RJ, Orlowski EP, Marion JM. Squamous cell carcinoma in epidermolysis bullosa. Treatment with systemic chemotherapy Cancer. 1990;66(6):1276–8.

Shivaswamy KN, Sumathy TK, Shyamprasad AL, Ranganathan C. Squamous cell carcinoma complicating epidermolysis bullosa in a 6-year-old girl. Int J Dermatol. 2009;48(7):731–3.

Kawasaki H, Sawamura D, Iwao F, Kikuchi T, Nakamura H, Okubo S, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma developing in a 12-year-old boy with nonHallopeau-Siemens recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Br J Dermatol. 2003;148(5):1047–50.

Ayman T, Yerebakan O, Ciftçioglu MA, Alpsoy E. A 13-year-old girl with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa presenting with squamous cell carcinoma. Pediatr Dermatol. 2002;19(5):436–8.

Cuadrado-Corrales N, Sánchez-Jimeno C, García M, Ayuso C, De Lucas R, Vicario JL, et al. A recurrent nonsense mutation occurring as a de novo event in a patient with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Dermatology. 2011;223(3):219–21.

Larocca CA, Cordova AC, Price LA, Milner SM. Squamous cell carcinoma as a complication of epidermolysis bullosa. Am Surg. 2012;78(9):E418–9.

Dammak A, Zribi J, Boudaya S, Mseddi M, Meziou TJ, Masmoudi A, et al. Squamous cell carcinoma complicating recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa-Hallopeau-Siemens: a report of four cases. Int J Dermatol. 2009;48(6):588–91.

Saxena A, Lee JB, Humphreys TR. Mohs micrographic surgery for squamous cell carcinoma associated with epidermolysis bullosa. Dermatol Surg. 2006;32(1):128–34.

Van Rengen A, Degreef H. Epidermolysis bullosa dystrophica of Hallopeau-Siemens and squamous-cell carcinoma: a case report. Dermatology. 1996;192(4):418–9.

Bosch RJ, Gallardo MA, Ruiz del Portal G, Snchez P, Arce MF, Herrera E. Squamous cell carcinoma secondary to recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: report of eight tumours in four patients. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 1999;13(3):198–204.

Wechsler HL, Krugh FJ, Domonkos AN, Scheen SR, Davidson CL Jr. Polydysplastic epidermolysis bullosa and development of epidermal neoplasms. Arch Dermatol. 1970;102(4):374–80.

Gothelf A, Mir LM, Gehl J. Electrochemotherapy: results of cancer treatment using enhanced delivery of bleomycin by electroporation. Cancer Treat Rev. 2003;29(5):371–87.

Bartolo J, Farricha V, Carvalhal S, Moura C, Abecasis N. Electrochemotherapy, a local treatment for squamous cell carcinoma in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Dermatol Ther. 2020;33(6): e14093.

Diociaiuti A, Rotunno R, El Hachem M, Latorre S, Cozza R, Curatolo P. Electrochemotherapy, a potential new treatment for the management of squamous cell carcinoma in patients with recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: report of three cases. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2016;30(7):1195–6.

Keefe M, Wakeel RA, Dick DC. Death from metastatic, cutaneous, squamous cell carcinoma in autosomal recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa despite permanent inpatient care. Dermatologica. 1988;177(3):180–4.

McGrath JA, Schofield OM, Mayou BJ, McKee PH, Eady RA. Metastatic squamous cell carcinoma resembling angiosarcoma complicating dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. Dermatologica. 1991;182(4):235–8.

Souza CS, Felício LBA, Bentley MV, Tedesco AC, Ferreira J, Kurachi C, et al. Topical photodynamic therapy for Bowen’s disease of the digit in epidermolysis bullosa. Br J Dermatol. 2005;153(3):672–4.

Khaddour K, Gorell ES, Dehdashti F, Tang JY, Ansstas G. Induced Remission of Metastatic Squamous Cell Carcinoma with an Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor in a Patient with Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa. Case Rep Oncol. 2020;13(2):911–5.

Trefzer L, Hess ME, Scholten L, et al. Variable Outcome of Immunotherapy in Advanced Multiple Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinomas in Two Patients with Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa. Acta Derm Venereol. 2023;103:adv4870.

Vasilev P, Kalev D, Karamanliev M, Dimitrov D, Troyanova P, Yordanova I. Cemiplimab treatment of squamous cell carcinoma in a patient with severe recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa. J Dtsch Dermatol Ges. 2023;21(3):295–7.

Bruckner A. Case report: A woman with rdeb and metastatic SCC managed with nivolumab. Acta Derm Venereol. 2020;100(SUPPL 220):19.

Google Scholar

Nikbakht N. Rigosertib in Patients With Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa Associated SCC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04177498. Updated September 8, 2022. [cited 2023 May 27]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04177498 .

Bauer J. Rigosertib for RDEB-SCC. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03786237. Updated November 4, 2022. [cited 2023 May 27]. Available from: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03786237 .

Atanasova VS, Pourreyron C, Farshchian M, et al. Identification of Rigosertib for the Treatment of Recessive Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa-Associated Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res. 2019;25(11):3384–91.

Bauml J, Seiwert TY, Pfister DG, Worden F, Liu SV, Gilbert J, et al. Pembrolizumab for platinum- and cetuximab-refractory head and neck cancer: Results from a single-arm, phase II study. J Clin Oncol. 2017;35(14):1542–9.

Gross ND, Miller DM, Khushalani NI, Divi V, Ruiz ES, Lipson EJ, et al. Neoadjuvant cemiplimab for stage II to IV cutaneous squamous-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med. 2022;387(17):1557–68.

Ouzzani M, Hammady H, Fedorowicz Z, Elmagarmid A. Rayyan — a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4 .

Joanna Briggs Institute. Critical Appraisal Tools [Internet]. Adelaide (AU): Joanna Briggs Institute; [cited 2024 Feb 19]. JBI. 2020. Available from: https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools .

The Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomized Trials (RoB 2) [Internet]. [place unknown]: The Cochrane Collaboration; [cited 2024 Feb 19]. Available from: https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/welcome/rob-2-0-tool?authuser=0&pli=1 .

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program. OHAT Risk of Bias Tool [Internet]. Maryland (US): U.S. Department of Health and Human Services National Toxicology Program; [cited 2024 Feb 19]. Available from: https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/assessments/noncancer/riskbias/index.html .

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

AH received a 2022 Travel Scholarship from the Pediatric Dermatology Research Alliance (PeDRA) for presentation at the 2022 PeDRA Annual Conference. ART is funded by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation)—Projektnummer 459731775. AP and ART received funding from the Epidermolysis Bullosa Research Partnership for studies with EB and squamous cell carcinomas.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Departments of Dermatology and Pediatrics, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, 676 North St Clair Street, Suite 1600, Chicago, IL, 60611, USA

Austin Hwang, Andie Kwon, Antonia Reimer-Taschenbrecker & Amy S. Paller

Department of Dermatology, University of Freiburg Medical Center, Freiburg, Germany

Antonia Reimer-Taschenbrecker

Galter Health Sciences Library & Learning Center, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL, USA

Corinne H. Miller

You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AH, AK, and ART performed literature screening and data extraction. AH conducted data analysis and was a major contributor in writing the original manuscript. AK, ART, and ASP provided revisions to the manuscript. ART and ASP provided oversight of the project and ensured all guidelines were followed. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amy S. Paller .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication, competing interests.

ASP is an Investigator for AbbVie, Applied Pharma Research, Dermavant, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Janssen, Krystal, Regeneron, UCB; Consultant for Aegerion Pharma, Azitra, BioCryst, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Johnson & Johnson, Krystal, LEO Pharma, Novartis, Primus, Regeneron, Sanofi/Genzyme, Seanergy, TWI Biotechnology, UCB; and Data Safety Monitoring Board for AbbVie, Abeona, Catawba, Galderma, InMed.

None of the other authors report conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: supplemental table 1..

Patients in Survival Curve. Supplemental Table 2. Database Search Strategy. Supplemental Table 3. Risk of Bias Assessments for Case Reports included in Analysis. Supplemental Table 4. Risk of Bias Assessments for Case Series included in Analysis. Supplemental Table 5. Risk of Bias Assessments for Cohort Studies included in Analysis.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Hwang, A., Kwon, A., Miller, C.H. et al. Therapies for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa: a systematic review of 157 cases. Orphanet J Rare Dis 19 , 206 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03190-1

Download citation

Received : 03 June 2023

Accepted : 19 April 2024

Published : 21 May 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03190-1

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Epidermolysis bullosa
Recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa
Skin cancer
Patient survival

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

ISSN: 1750-1172

Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
General enquiries: [email protected]

IMAGES

How To Write An Article Review Apa Style
🏆 Journal article format example. How to Write an Article Review: Full
(PDF) How to write a review article
How to write an article review apa style
(DOC) How-to-Write-a-Journal-Article-Review-APA-Style
How To Write Journal Article : How To Write A Critical Review Of A

VIDEO

NeuroBio Journal review
JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW # 7: HOW GIVING TREATS DEPRESSION (POELKER ET. AL. 2017)
Journal Voucher/Goshwara Voucher||Class 10||Account||10 Marks||Q.N.15||Pabson||AG TV||Solution
JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW # 19: SPIRITUALITY IN OLD AGE
JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW # 15: SOCIAL MEDIA USAGE AND MATERIALISM (KAMAL ET AL, 2013)
JOURNAL ARTICLE REVIEW # 20:HOW MATERIALISM LOWERS WELL-BEING

COMMENTS

How to Write an Article Review (With Samples)
3. Identify the article. Start your review by referring to the title and author of the article, the title of the journal, and the year of publication in the first paragraph. For example: The article, "Condom use will increase the spread of AIDS," was written by Anthony Zimmerman, a Catholic priest.
How to Review a Journal Article
For many kinds of assignments, like a literature review, you may be asked to offer a critique or review of a journal article.This is an opportunity for you as a scholar to offer your qualified opinion and evaluation of how another scholar has composed their article, argument, and research.That means you will be expected to go beyond a simple summary of the article and evaluate it on a deeper ...
How to Write an Article Review: Types, Format, & Examples
A journal article review involves a thorough evaluation of scholarly articles published in academic journals. It requires summarizing the article's key points, methodology, and findings, emphasizing its contributions to the academic field. ... Article Review Format. When crafting an article review in either APA or MLA format, ...
How to write a journal article review: What's in this Guide
This guide contains key resources for writing a journal article review.. Click the links below or the guide tabs above to find the following information. find out what a journal article is; learn how to use a template to get you started; explore strategies on how to choose the article for review; learn how to read a journal article effectively and make notes ...
How to Write a Peer Review
Think about structuring your review like an inverted pyramid. Put the most important information at the top, followed by details and examples in the center, and any additional points at the very bottom. Here's how your outline might look: 1. Summary of the research and your overall impression. In your own words, summarize what the manuscript ...
PDF sci article review
Article Review Definition of Genre Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article. Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic. The summary involves briefly but accurately stating the key points of the article for a reader who has
Journal Article Review in APA Style
Journal article reviews start with a header, including citation of the sources being reviewed. This citation is mentioned at the top of the review, following the APA style (refer to the APA style manual for more information). We will need the author's name for the article, title of the article, journal of the published article, volume and ...
Writing Help: The Article Review
For an article review, your task is to identify, summarize, and evaluate the ideas and information the author has presented. You are being asked to make judgments, positive or negative, about the content of the article. The criteria you follow to do this will vary based upon your particular academic discipline and the parameters of your ...
How to write a superb literature review
The best proposals are timely and clearly explain why readers should pay attention to the proposed topic. It is not enough for a review to be a summary of the latest growth in the literature: the ...
How to write a good scientific review article
Here, I provide tips on planning and writing a review article, with examples of well-crafted review articles published in The FEBS Journal. The advice given here is mostly relevant for the writing of a traditional literature-based review rather than other forms of review such as a systematic review or meta-analysis, which have their own ...
How to Write an Article Review (with Sample Reviews)
2. Read the article thoroughly: Carefully read the article multiple times to get a complete understanding of its content, arguments, and conclusions. As you read, take notes on key points, supporting evidence, and any areas that require further exploration or clarification. 3. Summarize the main ideas: In your review's introduction, briefly ...
How to Write an Article Review: Tips and Examples
Step 2: Cite the Article. Next, create a proper citation for the reviewed article and input it following the title. At this step, the most important thing to keep in mind is the style of citation specified by your instructor in the requirements for the paper.
Sample papers
These sample papers demonstrate APA Style formatting standards for different student paper types. Students may write the same types of papers as professional authors (e.g., quantitative studies, literature reviews) or other types of papers for course assignments (e.g., reaction or response papers, discussion posts), dissertations, and theses.
How to Write an Article Review: Template & Examples
Article Review vs. Response Paper . Now, let's consider the difference between an article review and a response paper: If you're assigned to critique a scholarly article, you will need to compose an article review.; If your subject of analysis is a popular article, you can respond to it with a well-crafted response paper.; The reason for such distinctions is the quality and structure of ...
Article review writing format, steps, examples and illustration PDF
Summaries and critiques are two ways to write a review of a scientific journal article. Both types of writing ask you first to read and understand an article from the primary literature about your topic. ... - Examine and comment the logic given in the article Suggested Format of an article review uous information. Illustrative Example for ...
PDF Format for reviewing an article
Write the literature review in the past tense; the research has already been completed. The article cannot "do", "find", or "say" anything. The authors are the people who conducted the study. The above format is a guideline. It may be necessary to change the verbs or to expand an idea. Sample format, Page 2 of 2.
Writing a Literature Review
A literature review can be a part of a research paper or scholarly article, usually falling after the introduction and before the research methods sections. In these cases, the lit review just needs to cover scholarship that is important to the issue you are writing about; sometimes it will also cover key sources that informed your research ...
Step by Step Guide to Reviewing a Manuscript
After the initial read and using your notes, including those of any major flaws you found, draft the first two paragraphs of your review - the first summarizing the research question addressed and the second the contribution of the work. If the journal has a prescribed reporting format, this draft will still help you compose your thoughts.
What is a review article?
A review article can also be called a literature review, or a review of literature. It is a survey of previously published research on a topic. It should give an overview of current thinking on the topic. And, unlike an original research article, it will not present new experimental results. Writing a review of literature is to provide a ...
How to write a review article?
Review articles are divided into 2 categories as narrative, and systematic reviews. ... As is the case with many research articles, general format of a systematic review on a single subject includes sections of Introduction, ... Articles from Turkish Journal of Urology are provided here courtesy of Turkish Association of Urology. Other Formats.
How to Write an Article Review: Tips, Outline, Format
APA Format Article Review. Writing an APA style article review, you will most likely use articles from journals, websites, and newspapers. For each source, you will have to create properly formatted bibliographical entries. Here is how to write an article review APA: Journal: Author's last name, First and middle initial. (Year of Publication).
Chaos to Clarity: Structuring Your Literature Review Format
Dissecting Literature Review Format. There are 6 main sections to make a note of while writing a literature review. Those are: The Introduction Section. Topic Background. Conceptual Framework. Synthesis and Evaluation in Literature Reviews. Conclusion for Your Literature Review. Reference List in Your Literature Review.
APA Style (7th Edition) Citation Guide: Journal Articles
When a source has 21 or more authors, include the first 19 authors' names, then three ellipses (…), and add the last author's name. Don't include an ampersand (&) between the ellipsis and final author. Note: For works with three or more authors, the first in-text citation is shortened to include the first author's surname followed by "et al."
Rapid literature review: definition and methodology
The full texts of 43 articles were analyzed resulting in 12 articles selected for this review, including 7 guidelines on the methodology of RLRs, together with 2 papers summarizing the results of the Delphi consensus on the topic [12,13], and 3 publications analyzing and assessing different approaches to RLRs [4,14,15].
The mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic among individuals
Objective: A scoping review of studies published in the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic focused on individuals with pre-existing symptoms of depression, anxiety, and specified stressor-related disorders, with the objective of mapping the research conducted. Eligibility criteria: (1) direct study of individuals with pre-existing depressive, anxiety, and/or specified stressor-related (i.e ...
Mapping the enhancing effects of additive manufacturing ...
2.3 Data analysis and synthesis 2.3.1 Research dimensions. To ensure that all the selected articles were assessed against the same underlying criteria in the review process (Tranfield et al. 2003), this study made use of established research dimensions (aka coding criteria) available in the literature.To code the gathered evidence in the review sample concerning AM features that enhance SCA ...
Cardiovascular health and cancer risk associated with plant based diets
Context Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs) and cancer are the two main leading causes of death and disability worldwide. Suboptimal diet, poor in vegetables, fruits, legumes and whole grain, and rich in processed and red meat, refined grains, and added sugars, is a primary modifiable risk factor. Based on health, economic and ethical concerns, plant-based diets have progressively widespread worldwide.
Journal of Periodontal Research: Vol 59, No 3
Journal of Periodontal Research: Volume 59, Issue 3. Pages: i-iv, 421-621. June 2024. Previous Issue. GO TO SECTION. ... REVIEW ARTICLES. Open Access. oa. ... Enter your email to receive alerts when new articles and issues are published. Email address *
Therapies for cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma in recessive dystrophic
Background Invasive cutaneous squamous cell carcinomas (cSCC) are a leading cause of death in recessive dystrophic epidermolysis bullosa (RDEB), a rare blistering genodermatosis. Outcomes of RDEB-cSCC therapies have primarily been described in case reports. Systematic studies are scarce. This systematic review aims to assess the pathophysiology, clinical characteristics, and outcomes of RDEB ...

How to Write an Article Review (With Examples)

Preparing to Write Your Review

Article Review 101

You Might Also Like

About This Article

Reader Success Stories

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

Get Started

Online Programs

Prairie Stars

Find your Fit

Arts & Culture

Give Like a Star

Bragging Rights

Request Info

How to Review a Journal Article

Questions to Consider

Evaluating Purpose and Argument

Evaluating the Presentation/Organization of Information

Evaluating Methods

Evaluating Data

Article Review Writing: A Complete Step-by-Step Guide with Examples

What is an Article Review?

Types of Article Reviews

Journal Article Review

Research Article Review

Science Article Review

Critical Review

Article Review Format

How to Write an Article Review? 10 Easy Steps

Step 1: Understand the Assignment

Step 2: Read the Article Thoroughly

Step 3: Create a Summary

Step 4: Identify the Author's Thesis

Step 5: Evaluate the Author's Evidence and Methodology

Step 6: Analyze the Author's Writing Style

Step 7: Consider the Article's Contribution

Step 8: Write the Introduction

Step 9: Develop the Body of the Review

Step 10: Conclude with a Summary and Evaluation

Article Review Outline

Article Review Examples

Tips for Writing an Effective Article Review

Keep reading

How to write a journal article review: What's in this Guide

What's in this guide?

Click below to view our related resources

Note taking in lectures and tutorials

Pathways and Academic Learning Support

Journal Article Review in APA Style

Tips for Writing Journal Article Review in APA Style

Start with a header with citation

Write a summary

Body of the review

Concluding the review

Citation and Revision

Related Posts

The importance of editing dissertations

APA Style of Formatting

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

How to write a superb literature review

Access options

Updates & Corrections

Related Articles

Associate Editor, Nature Briefing

Professor, Division Director, Translational and Clinical Pharmacology

Data Analyst for Gene Regulation as an Academic Functional Specialist

Recruitment of Global Talent at the Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (IOZ, CAS)

Full Professorship (W3) in “Organic Environmental Geochemistry (f/m/d)

Quick links

The Tech Edvocate

Spain, Ireland and Norway Say They Will Recognize a Palestinian State. Why Does That Matter?

3 Ways to Make a Mini Greenhouse ...

Matthew Lynch

3 Ways to Paint a Stone Basement

How to Play Kick the Can: 14 Steps

4 Ways to Trim Your Own Split Ends